models

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

This is a major strength. The description discloses two key behaviors: the 5-second timeout per CLI and 60-second cache, and that failures are reported per backend without hiding other models. It also notes the lists reflect server working directory and CLI configuration, not a guarantee of access. With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides distinct information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., splitting behavioral details), but it's efficient and readable.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, the discovery process, failure handling, and the caveat about access. It might benefit from noting that no arguments are required, but that's evident from the schema. It's complete enough for an agent to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (it's just an empty object). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it adds value by clarifying that the tool returns names ready for run and mentions the discovery process. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool lists supported model names, aliases, and reasoning effort levels, and that it queries Pi and OpenCode. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'ready for run' and its discovery mechanism, making its purpose specific and actionable.

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 it (e.g., before running commands that require models) and mentions it returns names ready for run. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but given zero parameters and its discovery nature, the context is clear enough. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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