list_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and 'curated' hints that results are a maintained subset rather than a raw feed, which is a small useful signal. However, it says nothing about result count, ordering, pagination, or whether any filtering requires auth, leaving real behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 zero filler, and the primary action plus the filtering capability are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and filters adequately. It omits what the listing contains (fields returned) and any ordering or pagination behavior, which a caller in a routing workflow would plausibly want to know, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 100% and each of the three filters is documented in the schema with enums and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description names the same three filters, adding no syntax, format, or combination semantics beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 curated model registry') and enumerates the three filter axes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns and how it can be narrowed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the routing siblings, but those names (route, cache_route, cost_compare) are operationally distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 phrase 'optional filters' implies the tool works with or without arguments, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g. routing through a model vs. enumerating candidates). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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