storage_config_providers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. The description is accurate and states the tool lists providers with config requirements and docs. It doesn't disclose edge cases (e.g., whether only enabled providers are returned, ordering, whether it requires auth). It's a low-risk read-only listing operation, so the missing detail is modest but notable.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', zero waste. Slightly more detail on return contents would enrich it, but what's there is appropriately concise.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and for what purpose. It's complete for its simple scope. Could mention whether it includes configured vs. all providers, but the simple nature of the operation justifies the brevity.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% with nothing to document. No parameter descriptions are needed since no parameters exist. The description's mention of what it returns (providers, config requirements, docs links) substitutes effectively.

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?

Description clearly states it lists available external storage providers and what they include (configuration requirements, documentation links). Clear verb+resource+result. Distinguishes from siblings like storage_config_get/update/test (which operate on a single config) and einvoice_providers/borderou_providers (different domains).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives mentioned. However, the purpose is self-evident as a discovery/list tool for providers, which is implied by the name and description. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools provided.

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