list_models

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world. The description adds value by specifying the list covers 'configured CLIProxy' models and by disclosing that a listed model may not support all interfaces. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations.

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?

One concise sentence states the core action and resource, followed by an important caveat. Every clause earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the return content (model IDs) and an important limitation. It could be more complete by explicitly connecting the output to the generate_text/generate_image siblings, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema fully covers that with an empty properties object, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to enrich.

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 uses the specific verb '查询' (query) with resource '已配置 CLIProxy 的可用模型 ID', making it clear this tool lists configured model IDs. This distinguishes it from the sibling generation tools generate_text and generate_image, which produce content rather than enumerate models.

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 context implies list_models is used to discover model IDs before generation, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus the siblings or that the IDs feed into generate_text/generate_image. The caveat about interface support hints at selection considerations, but it stops short of real usage guidance.

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