List Dagon models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external reach are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the concrete endpoint path and the fact that no API key is required, which affects whether the agent can call it before authenticating. It does not discuss result size or ordering, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first, the payload second, and the auth note last; every clause carries information and there is no filler. The endpoint in parentheses is compact supporting detail rather than padding.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content (models plus pricing), and auth requirements, which is close to everything an agent needs. A brief note on response shape or volume would make it fully self-sufficient, but no output schema exists so the burden is modest.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and the absence of arguments is implicitly confirmed by the call being a plain GET.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (models available on Dagon Inference) and adds what comes back (pricing) plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/models. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like dagon_chat, dagon_balance, or dagon_buy_credits, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery call for model names/pricing, but the description never says when to reach for it (e.g., before dagon_chat to pick a model) or whether any alternative exists. The 'No API key needed' clause gives one useful precondition but no exclusions.

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