list_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the 'examples' group is read-only, while 'models' is the user's own folder, and it enumerates what is returned for each entry. It stops short of covering edge cases such as empty folders or malformed models.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The return-field enumeration is somewhat long, but each element is informative and the group semantics come before it.

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?

An output schema exists, so the explicit list of returned fields is partly redundant, but the description still supplies the domain framing (what a model is, what the two groups mean) that the schema cannot. For a simple read-only list tool this is close to sufficient, missing only failure or empty-result behavior.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'group' parameter has no enum, yet the description fully documents both meaningful values and their backing folders, effectively supplying the enumeration the schema lacks. An agent can select a value correctly without any additional source.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List models') and goes further by defining what a model actually is (a folder with a fun_*.cpp equation file and at least one .lsd configuration). That definition usefully separates it from siblings like describe_configuration or read_equations, though 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 rather than stated: the group values tell the agent which folder it is browsing, and the '(read-only)' note hints that 'examples' is for inspection only. There is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus describe_configuration or read_equations.

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