list_models

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

The [READ] marker is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds nothing on its own, but the description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the returned content: each model is annotated with a policy verdict and unsanctioned "shadow" models surface as allowed: false. That is meaningful behavioral context for a policy-aware tool, though error/timeout behavior against a target is not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the core purpose, then one short clarifying sentence, then the arg note. Every sentence earns its place; the "Args:" block is slightly formulaic but harmless.

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-optional-param read-only lister with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, the special output case (shadow models with allowed: false), and the parameter's default semantics. It stops short of describing the return shape (e.g. name/hash fields) or failure modes against an unavailable target, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 description must carry the load, and it does: it identifies target as an Ollama target name from config and states that omitting it selects the default (local). It doesn't enumerate valid target names or where in config they live, so it is not fully compensating, but it is well above the schema alone.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource — installed models — plus the distinctive twist that each entry carries an allow/deny policy verdict. The "installed" scope implicitly separates it from running_models and model_details, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope (list what's installed rather than what's running), and the target arg guidance says to omit it for the default. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement versus alternatives like running_models or model_details.

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