List configured models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds ordering semantics (created_at descending, then id descending), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination return behavior, so it is only a partial addition.

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 single sentence is concise and does earn its place by disclosing sort order. However, it is not front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and for a four-parameter list tool the structure omits essential context. Brevity without purpose makes it feel incomplete rather than optimally concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return and pagination story, yet it only describes ordering. Required parameters orgID and modelProviderConfigID remain unexplained, and the tool's core purpose is absent. Given the complexity of paginated list tools, this is inadequate.

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 50%: limit and cursor are documented, but orgID and modelProviderConfigID have no schema description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required IDs. It only describes ordering, which is not a parameter.

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 never states what the tool does; it only reports sort order for returned items. The name and title imply 'list configured models', but the description itself supplies no verb or resource. This falls short of a purpose statement and does nothing to distinguish models_list from siblings like models_create or models_update.

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 alternatives. Siblings such as models_create, models_update, models_delete, and model_providers_list exist, but the description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent gets no routing help.

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