search_models

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Search models by name or description' and lists args. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, module loading behavior, or any performance implications. The mention of 'loading' in addons_paths is only about path configuration, not operational 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 is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact list of arguments with brief explanations. No redundant or filler content; every line adds value.

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?

The tool has 4 params, no annotations, but an output schema, so return value details are covered elsewhere. The description adequately covers purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks usage guidelines in relation to sibling tools and behavioral transparency (e.g., does it load all modules? is it safe/read-only?). These gaps make it only partially complete.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description includes an explicit Args list that explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., query matches names/descriptions, addons_paths auto-detected if omitted). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definitions, covering all four parameters clearly.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('models'), and specifies the matching criteria ('by name or description'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_models (which likely lists all models) by indicating a filtering/search behavior.

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 implies usage context (search with a query) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_models or model_info. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the selection mostly to inference.

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