get_available_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently notes that the directory parameter is currently ignored and that the tool uses a default directory, and it explains the shape of the returned data. This is solid for a read-only discovery tool, though it stops short of stating side-effect-free behavior explicitly.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Each part earns its place, and the return-field enumeration is useful rather than redundant given the lack of an output schema.

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 covers the essential information: what is retrieved, how the parameter behaves, and the exact fields in the returned dictionaries. It lacks explicit sibling comparisons or edge-case behavior, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the only parameter. It does so by stating that directory is ignored and the default directory is used, which is essential behavior not inferable from the schema alone. This fully compensates for the missing schema-level description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve all available EnergyPlus models and their metadata.' It clearly states what the tool returns and that the unique identifiers are meant for use with other tools, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that operate on specific models or files.

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 makes the tool's role in the workflow clear: it is the discovery entry point that returns model IDs for later use with other tools. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing instructions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when listing available models is needed.

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