list_helper_models

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Show" implies a non-destructive read, which is appropriate, and it distinguishes configured ids from backend-advertised ones. However it never confirms read-only behavior or states whether any auth or environment context is required.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key distinction (configured vs advertised) lands up front. Slightly dense with jargon ("helper model ids", "role") but nothing is wasted.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is reported: per-role configured ids and backend-advertised ids. Given the trivial input surface, the only real omission is when to use it.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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?

States a clear verb ("show") and resource ("helper model ids"), and adds scope detail: ids configured per role plus ids the backend advertises. That distinction is informative beyond a restatement of the name. It does not need sibling differentiation since ask_agent, web_search, web_fetch, and generate_images are unrelated 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, what scenario prompts it (e.g., debugging model routing or verifying configuration), or any prerequisites. The description only says what is shown, never when an agent should reach for it.

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