list_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return fields, labels itself as cheap to call, and reveals its limitation (no per-field/per-method detail), giving a transparent view of the tool's behavior for a read-only listing operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a return list, a cost/limitation note, and a concise Args block. Every line contributes necessary information with no redundancy or 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 listing tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, return values (effectively an output schema), parameter semantics, and limitations. The presence of sibling tools for deeper detail makes this scope sufficient, and the embedded return spec obviates the need for a separate output schema.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters, but the description's 'Args:' section adds semantic meaning. For example, 'addons_paths' is explained as 'Optional explicit addons paths (auto-detected if omitted)' and 'exclude_modules' as 'Optional list of module names to skip loading,' fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'List every model in the project registry with lightweight metadata,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings like model_info and field_info by stating 'does not include per-field or per-method detail,' making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 notes 'Cheap to call' and 'does not include per-field or per-method detail,' which implies it is suitable for broad overviews and not for detailed inspection. While it does not name explicit alternative tools, this context gives reasonable guidance on when to use the tool.

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