List Banned Models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the HTTP method (GET) and the exact endpoint, which conveys a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose return format, possible emptiness, or whether any authentication/configuration is required, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence that is immediately understandable and contains no filler. The title and description align, and the endpoint is included for precision.

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?

This is a trivial zero-input list tool, and the description is sufficient to convey its purpose and scope. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the tool's return value is essentially 'banned model names'. It is minimally complete, though slightly more context about the response format would strengthen it.

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, and the schema has 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the endpoint and the semantics of what is being listed.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('banned CivitAI model names'), with an explicit API endpoint. This distinguishes it from related CivitAI mutation tools like sdnext_civitai_add_banned or remove_banned.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool to get the list of banned CivitAI model names. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other listing tools or mention any exclusions or alternatives, though for a zero-parameter read operation the implied usage is reasonably clear.

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