provider_admin_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds 'projected from runtime discovery', which provides useful behavioral context about the source of the data, beyond what annotations convey.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource, includes examples, and is free of redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of good annotations and schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention return structure, but the examples suffice for a list tool. No output schema exists, so some reliance on description is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, and descriptions in the schema are adequate (e.g., 'Optional provider filter'). The tool description does not add additional meaning or clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'List provider CLI admin operations' with specific examples (auth status, model list) and notes it is read-only and projected from runtime discovery. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like provider_admin_mutate.

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 implies this is for listing available operations, contrasting with mutate/run siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use alternatives, though context signals provide good differentiation.

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