or_models_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the list respects privacy/guardrail settings, meaning results are filtered by account permissions and guardrails. This is valuable context beyond a simple 'list' operation, though it omits details like pagination or response format, which are less critical for a read-only listing tool.

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 immediately states the action and resource, then adds the differentiating caveat. Every word earns its place, and the structure is highly efficient.

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, param-less list tool, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the scope (account-specific), the behavioral filtering (privacy/guardrails), and how it relates to the sibling or_models. Without an output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return format, but that is a minor gap for a list operation, and the overall guidance is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema is empty, and the description correctly does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. No additional parameter semantics are 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'models available to this account', with the parenthetical explicitly differentiating it from the sibling 'or_models' which returns the full public catalog. This makes the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage context by stating that this tool differs from or_models: it respects privacy/guardrail settings and returns only account-available models, while or_models returns the full public catalog. This directly tells an agent when to choose this tool over the named alternative.

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