rca_model_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping results to the caller's own registered models, explaining optional filters, and documenting the JSON return shape. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses clearly labeled Args and Returns sections, and every sentence adds functional value with no 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 simple read-only listing tool with safety annotations and an explicit return format, this is nearly complete. It does not discuss pagination or specifically call out the token requirement, but those are either implied by the schema or low-risk for this operation.

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 Args section explains family_filter and status_filter with 'omit for all' semantics, which aligns with the schema, but it does not mention the required token or client_id. The schema documents those properties, so the description partially compensates but does not add much meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: 'List all of YOUR registered RCA models'. It also states concrete downstream use cases (finding a model_id for rca_analysis_run and checking plan-model-count usage), making it clearly distinct from analysis, graph, and guide listing siblings.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: to find a model_id for rca_analysis_run or to check model-count usage against the plan, and it references rca_admin_show_plan_info for the limit. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but the intended contexts are unmistakable.

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