workbuddy_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic listing action and does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires an active session, whether it triggers new work, or what happens when no session exists.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter schema and simple listing intent, the description is close to sufficient, but it remains vague about session lifecycle and what 'new response' means. An agent would need to infer timing and valid call contexts from sibling tool names rather than from the description itself.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics have minimal impact. The description adds a little context by indicating the models are tied to the current session/new response, but since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('models returned by the current WorkBuddy ACP session/new response'), which is more than a tautology and distinguishes it from session-action siblings. However, the phrase 'session/new response' is slightly ambiguous about whether it refers to an existing session's models or a newly returned response.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as workbuddy_session_status or workbuddy_session_send. The context is implied by sibling names, but the description does not state prerequisites like requiring an active session or that this should be called after a response is generated.

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