list_providers

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly describes the output fields and provides an interpretation example ('world-readable'). It implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state no side effects. Overall, sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 three short sentences, well-structured with bullet-like inline code formatting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so output details are covered. However, input parameters are not addressed, and the description could benefit from a brief note on prerequisites (e.g., package must be installed). It is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%. The description fails to explain the two input parameters ('package' and 'exported_only'). The example mentions 'exported_only=True' but does not define its meaning or effect. Output fields are described, but input semantics are missing.

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 specifically states 'list content providers of a package' with a clear verb-resource pair. It differentiates from sibling tools like find_provider_uris by detailing the included fields (authority, permissions, etc.).

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 a use case ('spot misconfigured providers') and an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_provider_uris or scan_provider_injection. There's no guidance on when not to use it.

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