model_list

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

With no annotations, the description only states basic functionality and return fields. It does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or requirements (e.g., need for an active session), leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

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: the first clearly states the purpose, the second lists return fields. Every word adds value; it is efficient and well-structured.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention error scenarios or prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for typical use.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by outlining the return structure (name, file path, status), providing context beyond the schema.

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 tool lists all models loaded in the COMSOL session, specifying the return fields (names, file paths, status). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from siblings like model_list_components.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., model_list_components) or any prerequisites like an active connection. The description lacks context for proper selection.

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