list_embedding_providers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only enumeration via 'List' but never states safety, whether results are cached, or whether the 'viewer' scope differs from what the server exposes. For a zero-parameter listing operation the residual risk is low, so this is adequate but thin.

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 with no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what a provider entry looks like (name only, or name plus model/config). It doesn't, leaving the agent unsure what it will receive, though the operation itself is simple enough that little else is required.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'embedding providers' and a scope qualifier ('available in the viewer'). An agent can distinguish it from list_tables or semantic_search from the name alone, though the description does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. It never states the relationship to semantic_search, install_dense_ann, or reindex, which are the natural follow-on/alternative tools once an agent knows which providers exist.

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