Terraform providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no note on how it invokes the binary, whether it requires an initialized project, or what 'selected' providers means.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is arguably too terse rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a tool that shells out to terraform/tofu, the description is silent on whether the project must be initialized or what 'selected provider versions' refers to, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so cwd and binary are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond a vague reference to 'the project', which is the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource (Terraform/OpenTofu version and selected provider versions), scoped to the project. It is distinguishable from siblings like tf_show or tf_workspaces, though it never names them directly.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus related tools such as tf_show or tf_backend_info, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the noun phrase 'for the project'.

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