tokonomix_list_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses conditional behavior (speed features not yet live, no-op filters), the advisory nature of speed data, and the meaning of 'eu' matching both eu and fr. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or errors, but for a read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 moderately long but information-dense, front-loading the core action and return fields. Conditional speed behavior is explained clearly, and every sentence contributes meaningful detail. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains well-structured for the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return values well, lists the key fields, and explains conditional speed behavior. It lacks explicit error/edge-case handling, but for a listing tool this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It does offer use-case framing (e.g., EU data-residency routing, speed selection) but not syntax-level additions beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'List the active models reachable through this account.' It also enumerates the returned fields, making its purpose unambiguous. It stands apart from sibling tools, which handle balances, consensus, and skills rather than model listing.

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 concrete usage contexts, such as filtering by EU data-residency routing and self-selecting faster models via speed filters. It does not explicitly discuss when NOT to use the tool or name alternatives, but since no sibling tool lists models, the guidance is sufficient. The no-op warning for speed filters adds important context.

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