list_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a 'static parse' (non-invasive, read-only file analysis) and specifies the data it returns. It does not detail edge cases (e.g., hidden files, parsing limitations), but for a straightforward listing tool this is adequate transparency.

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 compact phrase, front-loading the core purpose and listing the return fields without any filler. Every word adds value, making it an excellent example of concise documentation.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description sufficiently outlines what the tool returns. It could detail the output format (e.g., array keys, type casting) but the current level is enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope and likely invocation result.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-param tools. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; the score reflects that the schema is fully complete as-is.

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 the specific resource ('Eloquent models') and enumerates the exact attributes exposed (table, fillable, casts, relations). The scope ('static parse of app/Models') clarifies it's a code inspection tool, distinguishing it from siblings like list_routes or composer_deps which target different resources.

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 inspecting Eloquent model definitions, and the sibling list makes the alternative clear. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' statement or exclusion of other tools, so the guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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