whodb_platform_ai_provider_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/read profile is covered. The description adds that per-call workspace targeting does not mutate defaults, which is genuine behavioral context, though it partly duplicates the schema note on host. Nothing is said about pagination, result limits, or auth requirements, so a 3 is fair.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the read purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the per-call targeting behavior. Every clause carries information.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations that encode the safety profile, the description covers purpose and workspace targeting adequately. It could be slightly more complete by indicating what a model name/value looks like or that a provider_id must be obtained first, but no output schema exists and none is strictly needed.

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 100%, and the nested workspace object (host/org/project) is fully documented in the schema itself, including the note that host does not change the default. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It does not clarify provider_id accepted formats.

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+resource ('List model names') scoped to 'one hosted AI provider', which is enough to separate it from the sibling whodb_platform_ai_providers. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the provider-listing alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 sentence 'Accepts workspace {host, org, project} for per-call targeting without changing defaults' describes parameter behavior rather than when to pick this tool. Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should first resolve a provider_id (likely via whodb_platform_ai_providers) and then list models. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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