List Jev models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses partial-failure behavior — an unreachable provider surfaces in `errors` rather than failing the whole call. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or size of the result set.

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 output shape and filtering behavior are front-loaded and every clause carries information. There is mild redundancy between "Pass `provider` to list one provider only" and "`provider` is optional", which keeps it from a 5.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it still calls out the key edge case (`errors`). For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only result-volume or sorting behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of `provider`. It does: the parameter is optional, narrows output to a single provider, and the only valid value on this server is "typesafe" — enough for an agent to supply or omit it correctly.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list model names and aliases per provider, tagged with `provider`, that can be used in the `model` field. It is clearly distinct from the sibling evaluation tools (jev.evaluate, jev.score) by resource, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 tells the agent when to pass `provider` (to list one provider only) and that omitting it is fine because the server offers only "typesafe". There are no stated exclusions or named alternatives, but for a single-parameter list tool the usage context is clear.

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