gemini_models_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The word 'list' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or that it is safe to call. It also does not mention whether the list is dynamic or static, though the phrase 'actually usable' adds some context beyond a bare list.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the key usage tip. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given this is a simple list tool with no parameters, an output schema available, and a clear sibling relationship (gemini_chat_new), the description is complete. It tells the user what the tool does and how to apply the result, which is sufficient contextual information.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output (`name`) rather than input semantics, which is relevant since the schema has no properties.

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 the tool lists models available for the account, using a specific verb (list) and resource (models). It also distinguishes itself by noting the `name` can be passed directly to `gemini_chat_new`, which ties it to the sibling tools and clarifies its unique role.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need to know which models are available—and gives explicit guidance that the returned `name` values can be used with `gemini_chat_new`. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and the guidance is actionable.

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