provider_subcommands_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying 'compact', 'filterable', and 'without flags or raw help', providing useful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, or size limits.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Despite having 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, expected output structure, or any limitations (e.g., max items, pagination). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning or usage context to any of the five parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the action ('Return'), the resource ('catalog of declared provider CLI subcommands'), and key differentiators ('compact', 'filterable', 'read-only', 'without flags or raw help'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like provider_subcommand_contract by specifying what is omitted.

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 usage for getting a catalog of subcommands but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like provider_subcommand_contract or provider_subcommand_drift. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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