list_capability_providers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior split; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds context beyond the annotations by detailing what the returned records contain (provider_id, provider_type, auth metadata, supported execution owners, profiles). Since there is no output schema, this return-value disclosure is valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose and scope first, usage workflow second, return-value summary third. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless read-only list tool, the description covers the purpose, scope, result contents, and how it fits into the capability-binding workflow. Annotations already establish safety and idempotency, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 zero parameters)Skip and the schema has nothing to document; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description compensates well by explaining what the returned data will contain, which is the relevant semantic information an agent needs.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('unified capability providers'), and its organizational scope. It also enumerates the provider types and distinguishes the tool from related list/discover capability tools by explicitly positioning it as the entry point for finding provider_id and profile_id.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Start here to find provider_id and profile_id for create_capability_binding, then discover_capability_binding to see what a binding exposes.' This clearly describes the intended workflow and how this tool fits versus sibling tools, even though it doesn't name every alternative.

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