cli_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope context beyond that — that the tool reports availability and login status, not just versions, for all registered providers or one — but it does not disclose edge behavior such as how missing/unregistered CLIs or failed login checks surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and reported dimensions before enumerating providers. The provider list is marginally redundant with the schema enum, but it keeps the description self-contained at low cost.

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 read-only tool with one optional enum parameter and annotations fully covering the safety profile, the description states what it does, its provider scope, and its filtering option. With no output schema, it names the three reported dimensions so the agent knows what to expect, though it stops short of describing absence/error behavior.

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%: the single cli parameter has its own description and a complete enum listing the same seven providers. The description's 'or one' phrasing mirrors the parameter's optional-filter semantics without adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Report') and a well-defined resource (installed provider CLI versions, availability, and login status), then delimits the exact scope with the provider enumeration. This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like cli_upgrade, provider_version_guard, and provider_tool_capabilities.

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 report-oriented framing implies when to use it — whenever the agent needs to know which provider CLIs are installed, available, or logged in — but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. With siblings covering adjacent concerns (cli_upgrade, provider_version_guard, provider_subcommands_list), explicit routing would add value.

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