List Model Groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does declare 'Read-only; no side effects' plus the return shape. However it omits auth/permission requirements, pagination, and behavior when the model has no tags, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the read-only note, then the return shape and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Output shape is covered by the description and an output schema exists; the read-only nature and the list_groups alternative are stated. The main gap is the unaddressed server_version parameter, which leaves an agent guessing about a required argument.

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 only 50%: model_id is documented in the schema while server_version is undocumented anywhere, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying a single model. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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 specific verb and resource ('List the tags a given model belongs to') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_groups ('for every tag in the workspace'). An agent can distinguish this per-model listing from the workspace-wide listing without opening either schema.

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?

Names an alternative (list_groups) and the condition that selects it (wanting every tag in the workspace vs. one model's tags). No explicit 'when not to use' or mention of the add/remove_model_from_group siblings, but the routing guidance is clear.

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