qwen_models

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads live from the CLI over a control protocol, that it reflects what is 'actually reachable right now' (i.e., dynamic, not cached), and that it 'starts no task'. It also names the return fields, covering the main behavioral aspects of a listing operation without side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the action, scope, and output fields; the second gives the direct use case and a safety note ('Starts no task'). Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, that it is live, and that it is non-mutating. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly — no missing context about return format, side effects, or usage.

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 input schema already documents the single optional `search` parameter with a description ('Optional substring filter on model id or label, e.g. 'coder', 'max''), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no semantic detail beyond that — it simply repeats that it lists models. Per the rule, with full schema coverage the baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 begins with 'List the models' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, label, capabilities, context window). It also differentiates from siblings by specifying it reads live from the CLI and is used to select a `model` value for `qwen` / `qwen_reply`, making its role distinct from conversation and send tools.

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 states when to use it ('Use it to pick a `model` value for `qwen` / `qwen_reply`') and notes 'Starts no task', which implies it is a read-only query rather than an action. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with the conversation tools. The condition for selection is stated, though not the exclusion of alternatives.

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