List Hermes API models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the 'writing redacted request/result/response receipts' side-effect, which is non-obvious behavioral context that the idempotent/readOnly hints don't fully convey. This is useful transparency beyond structured data.

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, efficient sentence that packs the method, endpoint resource, purpose, scope, and the receipt-writing side-effect into compact phrasing. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Slight negative: 'writing redacted request/result/response receipts' is cryptic and could be more plainly stated (what are receipts, where are they written?), but as a concise clause it earns its place.

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 has an output schema, 100% parameter schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations declaring it non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Given this rich structured context, the description's job is light: it adds the GET /v1/models method mapping and the redacted receipt-writing behavior. This is reasonably complete for a simple single-parameter list tool with strong annotation coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'include_internal' with a clear description. The description doesn't elaborate further on parameter semantics, but with 100% coverage and only one boolean parameter, the schema does the heavy lifting adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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 specific verb+resource structure: 'lists available models from the configured Hermes API server.' It clearly states what is returned (available models), the source (Hermes API server), and the method (GET /v1/models wrapper). It also discloses a side-effect behavior (writing receipts) that distinguishes it from simpler list operations. Among siblings like hermes_api_skills_list and hermes_api_toolsets_list, the resource is unambiguously identified as 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 provides clear context about what the tool does and its scope ('from the configured Hermes API server'), implying appropriate usage when one wants to enumerate available API models. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name an alternative, and there are many read-only list siblings that could overlap in purpose. No exclusions or preferential-use guidance is provided.

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