List Models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scoping context ('active account or access key') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether authentication is required or how the list might vary. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse and use.

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?

The tool is simple, has no required parameters, annotations already convey safety and open-world behavior, and an output schema exists. The description plus structured information is sufficient for correct invocation without being overly verbose.

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 100%, with each parameter (baseUrl, profile, frontendUrl) already documented in detail including default resolution. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden.

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 states the exact verb ('List'), resource ('backend-supported Cloudeval models'), and scope ('for the active account or access key'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like models_default_get, which focuses on a single default model.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need a list of models available to the active account or access key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for this simple read-only list operation the context is sufficiently clear.

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