list_playground_models

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

The description warns that model IDs are opaque tokens and advises not to parse them, which is a key behavioral trait. It also indirectly implies the tool is read-only via the 'playground.read' scope statement. No annotations exist to contradict.

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: two sentences plus a brief scope/condition line. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of the listing tool and no output schema, the description adequately covers when to use, what the IDs look like, and how to use them. It could mention that results are paginated, but the parameters imply that.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly mentions the competition_id parameter in the context of 'this competition' but does not explain the two pagination parameters (limit, cursor) or their usage.

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 Playground model IDs accepted in a run for a specific competition, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource exactly. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_playground_runs by its focus on models.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to call this tool: 'Only call this when the competition's capabilities.playground is true.' It also mentions the scope requirement (playground.read). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the condition is clear.

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