fish_list_models

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The return statement ('JSON response') is minimal.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences. This is efficient and avoids any fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse. The structure is clear: action + resource, followed by a straightforward return note.

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 output schema is undefined and the tool lists models, the description lacks essential context. It does not state that the response contains a list of models, nor does it mention that pagination is supported (despite pagination parameters existing). This leaves the agent guessing about the structure and breadth of the response.

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 schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, meeting the high coverage baseline. However, the description adds no extra parameter context—it merely repeats the endpoint. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified how these parameters interact (e.g., filtering by tag vs. language).

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') and the resource ('available Fish voice models'), which is unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like fish_generate_audio and fish_get_model, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description does not mention that this should be used for browsing models, or that fish_get_model should be used for a specific model, leaving the selection criteria entirely unaddressed.

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