list_models

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which the description reinforces by calling the catalog 'live' and implying dynamic results. It adds context about the cache (1h) via the refresh parameter but does not fully explain what 'live' means beyond the cache. Beyond annotations, it conveys that results are dynamic and authoritative, which is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise and structured effectively.

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 read-only list tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It addresses the need to know that results are model IDs for run_model and warns against fabrication, which covers the key contextual requirements. Slight deduction for not detailing the return format (e.g., list of objects) but it's not critical given the schema.

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%, with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting the tool's output to run_model and emphasizing that returned IDs are authoritative, but it does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The refresh parameter's purpose (bypass cache) is already in the schema, so extra credit is limited.

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 states the tool searches the live WaveSpeed model catalog across modalities (image, video, audio, 3D) and returns model IDs, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like run_model. It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (model catalog), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs agents to use returned model IDs with run_model and warns against inventing IDs, which clarifies when to use this tool in the workflow. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance to always use this tool for obtaining model IDs is strong usage direction.

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