list_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates the tool returns a list of checkpoints with default, device, and offline status, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The verb 'List' implies safety, but the description could be more explicit about its read-only nature.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List the laya checkpoints') and then specifies the scope (default, device, offline status). There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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, parameterless list tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned (checkpoints, default, device, offline status). While it doesn't mention potential pagination or limits, these are unlikely to be significant for a small set of checkpoints. The description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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, so the schema provides no parameter information. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters (as none exist), and no compensation is needed. The description's mention of 'default, device and offline status' describes output fields, not parameters, so it doesn't add parameter semantics but is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'laya checkpoints', and specifies additional details (default, device, offline status). It distinguishes itself from the action-oriented sibling tools (decide, classify, score, etc.) by being a read-only query about available 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 description gives clear context about what the tool does (lists available checkpoints) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. Since it is a list operation and the siblings are all inference/classification actions, the use case is implied. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to call it.

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