lm_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what content the response contains (models, instance IDs, effective configs, capabilities), which goes beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or cost of a large model inventory.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the returned artifacts efficiently. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned data is helpful, and for a read-only listing tool the missing safety details are not critical. However, the undocumented 'model' parameter and the lack of differentiation from similar sibling tools leave an agent without enough to decide when and how to call it.

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 0% for the single 'model' parameter, so the description carries full responsibility — but it never explains what 'model' does. It is unclear whether it filters the listing to one model, selects a default, or is ignored; the description merely says 'models' generically.

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 clear verb ('List') and enumerates the specific resources returned: downloaded models, loaded instance IDs, configs, and capabilities. It gives a concrete picture of the tool's output, though it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like lm_status, lm_runtime, or lm_model_config.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With siblings such as lm_status, lm_runtime, lm_model_config, and lm_profiles that plausibly overlap in scope, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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