List Myles models

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: billing is not incurred, deprecated builds name their successor, and moving vs dated ids have different stability semantics.

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 front-loaded with what the tool does and then adds compact, useful details about id behavior, deprecation, and billing. Every sentence contributes information without 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 tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is listed, how model ids behave, and that listing is not billed. It does not describe the exact response structure, but no output schema is provided and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and requires no further parameter explanation from the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists the decision models served by this endpoint, and it clarifies what the returned ids mean. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools health and decide.

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 by explaining moving versus dated model ids for selection and repeatability, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool instead of health or decide. The reader can infer the purpose, but tool-selection guidance is absent.

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