list_companion_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the main behavior: listing IDs and reporting availability status. It is a read-only operation; the description's wording implies no side effects, which is adequate for a simple listing 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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence that leads with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted text.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's purpose for a zero-parameter list operation. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. The mention of specific configured models adds necessary context.

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 (empty object). Per the rules, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly does not add unnecessary param information.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('model IDs exposed by CLIProxyAPI') and adds the availability check for specific configured models. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_* and compare_models.

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 conveys clear usage context by stating it lists model IDs and checks availability of Codex, Grok, and DeepSeek models. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the context is sufficient.

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