list_roundtable_models

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly identifies the tool as read-only ('lists'), which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not state whether results are cached, require authentication, or reflect real-time changes. A 3 is appropriate as it meets the minimum for a safe read operation.

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 sentence of 10 words, concise and front-loaded with the verb 'lists.' Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple listing operation. It explains what is listed (models and roles). A missing piece is whether the list is of all available models or only those currently activated, but 4 is fair given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that the output includes not just model names but also 'their roles,' giving context about what each model does. This justifies a 4.

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 the verb 'lists' and specifies the resource ('all registered expert models and their roles on the Roundtable'), providing a clear and specific purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'run_roundtable' and 'route_prompt' by focusing on listing models, not executing or routing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_preset_roles' (which likely lists roles rather than model-role mappings). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the Roundtable must be initialized first, or when listing models is appropriate.

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