code-fundi-list-models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the GET /v2/models endpoint, which reinforces the read-only nature. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or any prerequisites. The description provides some context beyond the annotation but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List'), includes the endpoint, and lists the key output attributes. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 its simplicity, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the endpoint, and the returned fields. Without an output schema, this provides a solid mental model. It could mention authentication requirements, but that is a minor gap for a read-only catalog listing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description goes beyond by explaining what the response will contain (providers, required tier, context length), adding meaningful context despite the absence of parameters. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('curated Code-Fundi chat model catalog'), while also specifying the output fields (providers, required tier, context length). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like code-fundi-model-limits, which focuses on limits rather than the catalog.

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 implies usage when one needs to see available models, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as code-fundi-model-limits. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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