list_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burdencluster. It specifies account scoping ('available to the currently signed-in account'), the return contents ('display name and internal model name/id'), and the output format ('one per line'). It could add details about ordering or empty results, but this is a transparent read-only listing.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The first defines the tool; the second details the return format and how to use the result with sibling tools. No unnecessary 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is effectively complete. It covers account scoping, the information returned, output formatting, and the integration path to `generate_image` and `edit_image`. Nothing an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The baseline for no params is 4; the description appropriately focuses on output semantics and downstream usage instead.

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 Gemini models (image/chat) available to the currently signed-in account', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also ties the tool to its siblings by stating that its output values are meant for `generate_image` or `edit_image`, differentiating its listing role from those generation 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?

The description states a clear usage context: use the returned `model_name` as the `model` argument for `generate_image` or `edit_image` to override the default. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but with no competing list-style siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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