list_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden throughout. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and implies active reachability checking through 'configured and reachable,' which adds useful behavioral context. It does not detail output structure, but the read-only, zero-parameter nature limits risk.

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 wasted words. It clearly communicates action, scope, examples, and result content in a compact form.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool, this description covers purpose, scope, and read-only behavior completely enough. No output schema exists, but the description's 'what each can answer' conveys the expected result type; explicit output format documentation is a minor omission.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the description has no parameter-documentation burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of what the tool returns is sufficient for a no-argument invocation.

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 ('Show') with a clear resource ('signal providers') and names concrete examples (metrics-server/probe, Prometheus, Datadog, Splunk). It also states the outcome ('what each can answer'), which distinguishes it from sibling metric-query 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 clearly establishes the discovery context: call this tool to learn which providers are configured, reachable, and capable of answering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool covers provider discovery, so the usage context is clear enough.

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