dio_get_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Query' implies a read-only operation, and the listed result categories give some sense of what the caller receives. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, though the operation appears safely read-oriented.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the gateway and the three key result categories without wasted words. It is concise 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 the zero-parameter call, the description provides enough to invoke the tool, but the overlap with sibling dio_cluster_status on 'cluster health' creates ambiguity. Without an output schema, it also leaves the exact return shape unspecified, though the listed result categories mitigate this.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 a specific action ('Query DIO gateway') and the resources/result categories: available LLM models, active backends, and cluster health. It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling dio_cluster_status, which likely covers the health portion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, particularly dio_cluster_status for cluster health or dio_route_prompt/dio_predict_latency for other concerns. The description implies a general querying purpose but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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