list_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output is a list of models and that it can be agent-specific or all agents, which is useful. Missing details: it doesn't specify the output format or any side effects, but for a read-only listing tool, the described behavior is likely sufficient, hence a 3.

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, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a usage hint. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with parameter details, but it is efficiently written.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown) which may cover return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, with two parameters and no schema documentation, the description should provide enough context to choose between them. It doesn't fully, but for a simple listing function, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'given agent or all agents' but does not explain the two parameters ('agent' and 'agent_name') or how they interact. There is ambiguity between 'agent' and 'agent_name' that the description doesn't resolve, so this is a clear gap.

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 available models and indicates it is tied to an agent or all agents. The verb is specific and the resource is clear, but it could benefit from distinguishing from sibling tools that also explore availability (e.g., list_agents), though the model-specific focus is evident.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for choosing a model before delegating a task,' which gives a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or mention the sibling 'list_agents' as an alternative, but the use case is fairly specific.

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