List Memory Providers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds a small scope detail ('available for agents'), but does not mention output format, potential empty results, or any authentication aspects. This is minimal beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, no output schema exists, and the description does not hint at what fields or types of providers are returned, leaving a minor gap in full self-contained context.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is complete. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description has nothing to add.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action (list) and resource (memory providers available for agents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_memprovider_get_provider, which fetches a specific provider, and from non-memory provider listing tools.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as lyzr_memprovider_get_provider or provider configuration tools. There are no stated use cases, exclusions, or relationship to other memory management functions.

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