list_model_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning if it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the output format. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having a single parameter and no output schema, the description fails to mention the return format (e.g., list of strings) or behavior when the optional 'provider' is omitted. This lack of completeness could lead the agent to misuse the output.

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 has 100% coverage for the one parameter 'provider' with description 'Filter by provider'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter clarity.

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 all available model IDs for a provider, using the verb 'List' and the resource 'model IDs'. It differentiates from sibling tools like compare_models, get_model, and query_models by focusing on ID enumeration rather than details or comparisons.

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 hints at usage with 'Useful for finding exact API identifiers', but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The context from sibling names provides implicit guidance but the description itself lacks exclusion criteria.

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