speckle_models_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It states 'List all models' but does not disclose that results are limited by the 'limit' parameter, making the 'all' claim potentially misleading. It also does not describe pagination, sorting, or any read-only nuances beyond the verb 'list'.

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 two sentences, immediately states the main action, and adds a useful explanatory clause about models. There is no redundant or filler content; each word contributes value.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main purpose but omits important behavioral details like the limit parameter's effect and any assumptions about read-only behavior. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for invocation without referencing the schema.

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 schema has two parameters (limit and project_id) with no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'Speckle project' which maps to project_id, but it does not explain the limit parameter at all. This leaves the agent without an understanding of how to control result size.

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 that the tool lists models in a Speckle project, using the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'models'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like speckle_projects_list (lists projects) and speckle_model_details (gets details of a model) by specifying the scope as models within a project.

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 the tool is used to get a list of models when you have a project_id, and the context about models holding BIM/CAD data helps set the context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like speckle_model_details, nor does it state exclusions. The context is clear enough for basic guidance.

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