list_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is 'exact' supported model IDs plus skeletons/formats/revision, which is mild content-level context but no detail on ordering, size, or caching.

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 naming the resource and its returned fields, with no filler. Every word carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not the description's job, and a no-arg read-only listing needs little more. The only missing piece is routing context versus other informational siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema (empty object) is consistent with the description's claim of a simple listing call.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a concrete resource 'models', and it enumerates what the listing contains (exact IDs, skeletons, export formats, upstream revision). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby informational siblings such as get_capabilities or get_input_schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call to make before generating or exporting motion, but the description never says when to call it or how it differs from get_capabilities/get_input_schema, which also sound informational.

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