list_models

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses how the tool works: it reads the loader's enum from object_info, handles both legacy list and COMBO encoding, and reports every enum-typed input if input_name is omitted. This provides good transparency, though it could mention the output format (which is covered by output schema).

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 succinct yet informative: a single sentence for purpose, then technical details, then usage warning. Every sentence adds value without repetition. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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's simplicity, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, technical behavior, parameter guidance, and a caution. An output schema exists to cover return values. It could include an example or mention of expected response, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of omitting input_name (reports all enum-typed inputs) and implies that class_name identifies the loader. However, it does not fully describe class_name, and the description is incomplete for the class_name parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'List the real model files a loader offers'. It specifies the resource (model files) and action (list), and adds context about avoiding hallucination. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_models (which searches) and install_model (which installs).

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 explicit guidance: 'never hallucinate a checkpoint/LoRA/VAE filename' and 'Pick ONLY from the returned list'. It explains when input_name can be omitted to get all enum-typed inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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