Core: List models

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: read-only, static, not billed, BYOK requirement for non-mock models, auth mechanism for both stdio and remote HTTP, and tenant-scoped results. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by usage routing and constraints. The parenthetical vendor enumeration is longer than strictly necessary but does convey which providers are mocked, so it earns most of its space.

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?

Output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained; the description instead covers the things the schema cannot: routing semantics, BYOK, auth, billing, and tenant scope. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is missing.

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+resource (list model ids) and enumerates the exact payload (routed model ids plus the prefix routing table). It also distinguishes itself from metrecept_list_providers, so an agent can separate the two without opening a 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?

Explicit sequencing guidance ('use it before metrecept_create_chat_completion to pick a model') plus an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('Not for which vendors are actually configured: use metrecept_list_providers'). It also states the forwarding rule for prefixed ids.

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