List provider credentials

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is established. The description adds one crucial behavioral fact not present in annotations: secret values are masked in the response. This helps the agent avoid expecting raw secrets. No contradictions are present; it just doesn't cover pagination or response shape, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, with the key action and scope in the first sentence and the masking warning in the second. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is ideal for this simple tool.

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 one-parameter tool with read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the main use cases and explicitly mentions the masking behavior. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't state what the returned list contains (e.g., provider IDs, names, types). It doesn't fully eliminate ambiguity for an agent that wants to predict the response shape, but it's sufficient for a basic read operation.

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 0%, so the tool description must compensate for the undocumented profile_id parameter. It mentions 'for a profile' but fails to link that to the profile_id field, its allowed range (1–6), the default value of 1, or its optionality. The schema itself provides the numeric constraints, but the description adds almost no semantic value beyond the parameter's name and the vague 'profile' reference.

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 ('List'), the resource ('configured providers'), and the scope ('for a profile'), and it enumerates the provider categories that are excluded. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like nuvio_list_plugins or nuvio_list_addons without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use it (when you need to see configured providers and their masked credentials), but it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like nuvio_set_provider_credential or nuvio_delete_provider_credential. There is no clear statement of when this tool should be used instead of or along with those, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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