List Registered Models

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the registration_id is the handoff key to `deploy_serving` and workspace accepts either an id or a label. It stops short of describing list size, ordering, or pagination behavior, which is the remaining gap for a read tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it lists, how to create a new entry, and how to fill the one parameter. Front-loaded with the purpose and zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers routing, the parameter source, and the downstream handoff. It is slightly thin on what a returned list looks like when empty or whether results span all workspaces when the parameter is omitted, but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no title-level description, so the description carries the burden and does it well: `workspace` takes the id from the `workspaces` tool, a label also works, and it may be omitted when the user has only one workspace. Only the exact format of a label is left implicit.

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 and resource ('List the models a workspace registered for serving') and immediately ties the result to a downstream consumer by naming `registration_id` as what `deploy_serving` takes. This separates it cleanly from `model_sets`, `register_model`, and `deploy_serving` without needing the 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?

Explicitly routes the creation path to `detect_model` and `register_model`, and gives a concrete conditional for the optional parameter ('omit it if the user has only one'). It also tells the agent where the workspace value comes from, so there is nothing left to infer about when and how to call this.

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