List Available Models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses that each entry carries installation status, VRAM requirements, and ideal media targets, which implies a read-only catalog read. It does not state whether the catalog reflects locally installed state only or a remote catalog, nor whether the call is expensive or cached.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the returned-field list is appended where it adds value. It could be marginally tighter, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still summarizes them usefully. For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only the sibling-routing context is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering options exist, since it promises 'all' models.

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 ('List') and resource ('all supported models in the catalog'), and adds the fields surfaced per entry. It does not explicitly position itself against siblings like recommend_model or download_model, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Use is implied by 'list all supported models', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no pointer to recommend_model for selection advice or download_model for installing an entry. The catalog-reading role is guessable, not stated.

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