suno_list_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns a 'Table of all models with their version, limits, and features,' which is sufficient for a read-only listing tool. No side effects or destructive actions are implied, and no contradictions exist.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, contextual instruction, a bulleted model comparison table, and a brief return summary. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It lists all available models with their durations and features, addressing the agent's need to choose a model. No additional information is required.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds value by detailing the models and their attributes, which indirectly clarifies the output but does not need to explain 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 clearly states 'List all available Suno models and their capabilities.' The verb 'list' and resource 'Suno models' provide a specific action and object. Among sibling tools (e.g., suno_generate_music, suno_cover_music), this tool is uniquely informative, differentiating it clearly.

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Use this to understand which model to choose for your music generation.' It includes a detailed model comparison with recommendations (e.g., 'chirp-v4-5: Recommended balance of quality and speed'). This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond listing.

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