keep_list_providers

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: config, details, and credential fields are stripped from the response, and the response is not cached, which tells the agent both what it will not receive and that freshness is guaranteed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the endpoint, the redaction behavior, and the caching note. The 'GET /providers' line is mild filler but still maps the tool to a concrete API route, so nothing is materially 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level and what is deliberately omitted (credentials, config). An agent could call it correctly from this text; only the exact response shape and whether detail-fetching requires a different tool remain unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description needs to compensate for. It does not invent or reference any parameter semantics, which is correct.

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 and resource ('List ... providers') and narrows scope to available, installed, and linked providers, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools such as keep_list_workflows or keep_list_applications. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the resource noun is distinctive enough.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for provider inventory. There is no statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisites (e.g., auth or permissions), and no mention of alternatives for getting full provider details rather than the stripped listing.

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