provider_admin_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context with 'projected from runtime discovery', signaling that the result is inferred from the runtime environment rather than a static hardcoded list. It also lists representative operation categories, though it does not discuss potential staleness or exact output shape.

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 one tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives examples, scope, and the read-only warning. There is no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only catalog tool with two optional parameters, the description plus the rich schema descriptions are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. There is no output schema, but the return shape is reasonably implied by 'List' and the concrete examples of operation categories, so the remaining ambiguity is minor.

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 provider and includeUnavailable are already fully documented structurally. The description does not add extra meaning about filtering behavior or what including unavailable operations entails, so it stays at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('provider CLI admin operations'), and a scope ('on the installed CLIs'), with concrete examples such as auth status, model list, mcp list, and doctor. The 'Read-only' marker and the admin-operation framing clearly distinguish it from siblings like provider_admin_run and 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 the tool is for discovering which admin operations an installed CLI exposes, and the read-only note hints against using it for mutation. However, it never names alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer routing relative to sibling catalog and execution tools.

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