Report advertised models/modes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports current/advertised values rather than modifying them, explains both parameter branches, and notes the null state until the first session exists. It stops short of explicitly stating side-effect-freedom, but 'report' and the conditional output semantics make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 compact: two sentences plus a short example line. Every sentence earns its place, and the conditional behavior is front-loaded with the 'name' parameter case first. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both invocation branches, the null edge case, and example model ids. It does not detail the exact structure of the returned lists, but for a reporting tool with simple inputs, the essential usage information is present.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what happens with and without 'name', tying the parameter to the session's model/mode versus bridge-level defaults. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Subagent handle returned by spawn' description.

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 states a precise verb-resource pairing: reporting the current model/mode and advertised lists. It clearly distinguishes two invocation modes (with and without 'name'), and the examples of Devin model ids add concrete specificity. This separates it from siblings like set_model and set_mode, which are change operations rather than reporting operations.

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 clear context for when to include the optional 'name' parameter versus omitting it, including the null-before-first-session behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the conditional usage guidance is concrete and actionable.

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