List Providers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, including the caching behavior of force_refresh, the semantic difference between 'clip' and 'natural_language' prompt styles, and the refreshed_at timestamp. However, it doesn't fully detail the response structure, though that is covered by the output schema.

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 compact and well-structured, leading with the core purpose and following with useful details about prompt_style, refreshed_at, and force_refresh. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 list tool with an output schema and robust annotations, the description provides all necessary context: return contents, prompt_style semantics, refresh behavior, and the alternative resource access. It is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to trip over.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of force_refresh ('if providers may have changed') echoes the schema's already detailed description rather than adding new meaning. It provides no additional semantics beyond what the schema already explains.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'List available image generation providers, models, and capabilities.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_server_info or gallery_page. It also provides additional detail about prompt_style and refreshed_at, further clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 explicit conditional guidance: 'Pass force_refresh=true if providers may have changed since the last check.' It also mentions an alternative representation (info://providers resource), helping an agent decide between tool vs. resource access. This is clear usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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