list_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List available...' with no additional behavioral context such as whether this is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether it returns all models at once, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to reveal behavioral traits beyond the obvious list action.

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, clear sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and immediately lists the specific items covered. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It names the two categories of returned data (LLM + embedding models, supported locales/countries). Slightly more context about the return style (e.g., full list vs. paginated) would improve completeness, but the low complexity and schema mitigate this gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the description correctly mentions the scope (models and locales/countries) without needing to explain any input semantics. The schema confirms no properties, so no conflict.

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 begins with the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'available LLM + embedding models and supported locales/countries.' This precisely states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_parcels or list_reports, which focus on different domains.

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 implies usage: call this tool when you need to see available models or supported locales/countries. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or any exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no direct confusion, but the guideline is only implicit.

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