ppt_list_route_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the workflow being 'locked' and the precondition, but doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output represents beyond 'candidate models', or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose, and every word earns its place. The precondition is stated succinctly without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does and the required context. It doesn't detail return values (covered by output schema) or elaborate on 'candidate models', but that's acceptable for a straightforward list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter (route_workflow_id) is indirectly explained in the usage note ('same route_workflow_id'), making it clear it identifies the workflow, but no format, source, or additional semantics are provided. This meets the minimum threshold but doesn't fully compensate.

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 candidate models for a specific workflow ('currently locked high-level route workflow'), using a specific verb ('List') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ppt_list_ai_models, which likely serve a different purpose.

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 provides an explicit precondition: only use after pdf_path and page range are confirmed on the same route_workflow_id. This gives clear context for when to use, though it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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