Per-model retirement rows from the record: which model dies when, with runway and migration target. Default shows scheduled (upcoming) retirements sorted by shutdown date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows. Default 100. | |
| status | No | Default scheduled. | |
| provider | No | Filter to one provider id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides basic behavior - read operation returning sorted retirement rows - but does not disclose rate limits, whether it's read-only, or pagination details. The description is adequate but lacks enrichment beyond the obvious.
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 sentences, clear and front-loaded with key information. The first sentence is slightly jargon-heavy but still effective. No wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description gives a good overview of what rows contain (model, date, runway, migration target). It could list exact fields or mention pagination, but it's sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose.
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 descriptions cover all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic value for parameters beyond noting the default scheduled status, which is already in the schema.
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 it lists per-model retirement rows with shutdown date, runway, and migration target. It distinguishes from siblings like list_models (general model listing) and get_model (single model detail) by focusing on deprecation information.
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 viewing retirement schedules (default scheduled) and filtering by status or provider, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct, but list_deprecations and list_events overlap in covering deprecations. Descriptions clarify that list_deprecations is specific to retirement schedules with runways, while list_events is a broader changelog filterable by severity, so an agent could still choose correctly.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., list_models, get_model, estimate_cost). The length variation is minor and does not break the pattern.
Seven tools is an ideal size for this domain—enough to cover key operations (listing, getting details, checking dependencies, estimating costs, viewing history) without overwhelming the agent. Each tool has a clear role.
The tool set covers the main use cases for model information and monitoring. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to list providers, though list_models can filter by provider name. Overall, CRUD-like coverage is good for a read-heavy informational server.