list_models

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

The description explicitly states this is a GET passthrough, signaling a safe read-only operation, and clarifies that it returns currently loaded/served model IDs. With no annotations, it carries the burden well, though it omits details about error behavior or data freshness; for such a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It states the action and resource directly, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description only needs to state its purpose. It does so clearly, and the sibling tool names provide additional context for placement.

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 schema has zero parameters, so description parameter guidance is unnecessary; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does clarify that the output consists of model IDs, complementing the existing output schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'lists' and identifies the resource as 'model IDs currently loaded/served,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_health or get_service_status. The 'GET /v1/models passthrough' prefix reinforces the operational scope without ambiguity.

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 implicitly suggests use when querying available/loaded model IDs, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternative tools, leaving usage timing to inference based on the tool's name and sibling context.

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