list_providers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well for the sensitive-data concern: it states that API keys are never returned and only the environment variable name is shown. It does not mention authentication or side-effect safety explicitly, but 'List' implies read-only behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded and efficient: purpose first, then the key safety constraint about API keys, then return shape. The Returns block is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it is brief and does not bloat the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity and zero input parameters, the description is nearly complete: it explains the resource, the safe public scope, the API-key behavior, and the response envelope. It omits auth/permission requirements, but with an output schema present, return details are sufficiently covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List configured providers and their safe, public configuration.' It clearly distinguishes this read operation from sibling mutation tools like create_provider, update_provider, and delete_provider.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose implies when to use it, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose list_providers over alternatives or mention sibling tools such as get_assistant or update_provider. It is usable, but guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.