List Axcel models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the shape of the returned payload (option categories per model) despite there being no output schema, plus a freshness signal ('Live'). It doesn't mention caching, auth, or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded ('Live model catalog') followed by the enumeration of its contents. No redundant restatement of the name or title, and no filler.

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 catalog tool with one optional enum parameter this is close to sufficient, and the description usefully compensates for the missing output schema by naming what the catalog contains. However it ignores the only input parameter and says nothing about result size, filtering behaviour, or when the catalog might change, leaving gaps an agent must resolve by trial.

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% and the single parameter ('type', enum video/image) is never mentioned in the description, which instead describes returned payload fields rather than the filter input. The enum values are self-explanatory in the schema, which limits the damage, but the description does not compensate for the coverage 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 names a concrete resource (a live model catalog) and enumerates what it contains (inputs, resolutions, durations, ratios, audio), so an agent knows this is a discovery/read tool rather than a generation tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like axcel_generate_video or axcel_film_guide, but the resource is specific enough to distinguish it.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternatives (axcel_film_guide, axcel_help) and no stated prerequisites. The implied use — call this before generating to learn valid options — must be inferred entirely by the agent. 'Live' hints at freshness but that is not equivalent to routing guidance.

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