list_models

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only action with 'list', but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it describe error behavior or output format. It does add value by explaining the host scoping (per host or all hosts).

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 a compact two-sentence docstring with a clear first line and a concise Args section. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description covers core behavior and parameter semantics well. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., list of model names per host), which is a minor gap given the lack of structured output info.

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 input schema has zero description coverage (0%), but the description fully compensates by explaining the host parameter with an example ('corsair') and stating the default behavior when omitted (lists all fleet hosts). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 'List installed Ollama models per fleet host', which is a specific verb-resource-scope combination. It is distinct from sibling tools like pull_model, generate, and compare_models, so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_models or pull_model. It only explains the host parameter behavior, not the usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when listing models is appropriate.

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