crispasr_list_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys a non-mutating 'List' operation and hints at output via 'installation status,' but it doesn't explain what 'approved' means, whether models_dir is scanned, or what the returned entries look like.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the key action, object, and status output are front-loaded. Every word contributes to the definition.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only listing with a single optional parameter and no output schema. The description conveys what is listed (approved choices plus installation status), which is enough to invoke it, though it leaves the models_dir semantics implicit.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never mentions models_dir. The parameter name and default are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how the directory relates to approved choices or installation status.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List approved local GGUF model choices and installation status.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like crispasr_download_models, which downloads, and crispasr_resolve_model_paths, which resolves paths.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using it before download_models or as a way to verify installed models, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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