kasko_list_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no destructive behavior is expected. The description adds behavioral context about model name composition (carrying trim, engine, gearbox info) and that model_id is the key for kasko_get_value, enhancing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence is a clear purpose statement, and the additional sentences provide useful detail without being verbose. However, the first sentence could more explicitly front-load the essential action.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, 100% coverage, no enums), the description is adequate. It explains the meaning of returned data and how it connects to another tool (kasko_get_value). The presence of an output schema means return values don't require further explanation.

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 100% and the schema already describes both parameters (brand and model_year) with examples. The description does not add further parameter semantics; the example values in the description are redundant with the schema descriptions.

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 specific resource ('models of one brand in a model year'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the returned model_id is used by kasko_get_value, which differentiates it from tools like kasko_list_brands or kasko_list_model_years.

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 explains what the tool returns (model names with trim, engine, gearbox info) and the significance of model_id for downstream use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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