list_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool is a listing operation returning models with readiness and installed ComfyUI items, which is transparent about its read-only nature. However, it does not mention potential latency, output size, or any side effects. The behavior is adequately conveyed but not enriched beyond the literal action.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action ('List the image models') and packs in the key detail about `model` keys. It is a bit dense with the second clause about ComfyUI installations, but every part contributes meaning. No filler words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero params) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It explains what will be returned (models with readiness, plus installed items) and why the output matters (`model` parameter keys). No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description adds value by explaining that the output contains keys for the `model` parameter elsewhere, giving the output practical meaning beyond a bare list. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: it lists image models the server can drive, with readiness, and everything ComfyUI has installed. The mention of 'keys for the `model` parameter' clearly ties the output to model selection for generation/editing tools, distinguishing it from siblings like server_status or job_status.

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 when to use this tool: when you need valid values for the `model` parameter. This is clear context, though it does not explicitly say 'use before generate_image' or name alternatives. It gives enough context for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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