List OpenAI image models

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is its disclosure of the payload contents (capabilities, default model, retired models) — meaningful since no output schema exists. It omits any mention of ordering, auth requirements, or whether retired models are flagged as unusable, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the resource, and the return contents with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and that it includes the default and retired models. Minor gaps (e.g., whether retired models are marked deprecated or excluded from use) are unlikely to block a correct call.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals a no-argument call by not implying any filtering or selection options.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("supported OpenAI image models") and enumerates what the listing contains: capabilities, the default model, and retired models. It does not explicitly name generate_image/edit_image, but the read-only "list" verb is self-evidently distinct from the sibling generation/editing tools.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling generate_image or edit_image. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or a named alternative, so it sits at the minimum-viable level for guidance.

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