list_models

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing network behavior ('refresh' fetch live vs configured defaults), interactive picker behavior, VRAM classification for lmstudio, and the no-key property for Atlas/OpenRouter. This adds substantial context beyond the structured hints.

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 dense but well organized: purpose first, then provider catalogue details, then parameter-specific qualifiers, ending with a one-word safety tag. Every sentence contributes differentiating behavior or usage context, and no space is wasted.

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 complexity (six parameters, five enum values, no output schema), the description covers the important return-relevant details: what each provider offers, when network access is used, what task ranking does, and what the picker will do. An agent has enough to select parameters correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description improves on that by explaining the meaning of ranking ('task'), the interactive picker, and the 'all' extension for Ali. It mostly reinforces the schema rather than adding wholly new semantics, but the additions are useful.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the available models for one gateway'. It further disambiguates itself by enumerating the five provider catalogues, so an agent can tell exactly what it does and how it differs from the sibling ask/configure tools.

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?

Gives clear context ('before spending a call', 'offer a concrete choice') and explains provider-specific behaviors such as which catalogues are free or need no key. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the guidance is strong enough for selection.

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