ddg_list_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what is listed without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. For a list tool this is minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it optimally concise.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is reasonably complete for a simple list operation. It names two categories of output, though it could mention if the list is exhaustive or requires any prior setup.

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?

Since there are zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and the description is not required to add parameter details. The description adds value by specifying the types of models listed (local/free and paid/account-backed), which is helpful context beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies per guidelines.

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 a specific verb 'List' and identifies two concrete resources: 'local/free Ollama models' and 'queryable paid/account-backed route labels'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ddg_request_ollama_model (requesting) and ddg_run_paid_model (running), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for discovering available models before requesting or running them, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ddg_list_local_runtime_options or ddg_public_resource_index. No when-not-to-use scenarios are given.

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