List LoRAs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly identifies a read operation (list) and includes the HTTP method, which is transparent. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a simple GET request, none are expected. The added prompt usage hint provides extra context beyond the basic listing behavior.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the primary action and then providing a practical usage tip. There is no redundancy, fluff, or repetitive content. Every sentence contributes value: the first defines the tool, the second shows how to utilize its output.

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 that this is a simple, parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, the underlying API endpoint, and how to apply the results (prompt syntax). No additional details about return format or pagination are necessary for such a straightforward tool.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. It correctly omits any parameter details, and the schema is empty. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 the action ('List all LoRA models') and provides the exact API endpoint (GET /sdapi/v1/loras). It also includes the prompt usage syntax, distinguishing it from related tools like sdnext_list_loaded_loras by emphasizing 'all' vs. loaded. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives direct usage guidance by showing how to use the result in prompts (<lora:name:weight>). It implies when to use (when you need to know available LoRA models or get their names for prompt construction) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sdnext_list_loaded_loras. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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