list_models

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: lists models with dim, active flag, and chunk counts. It also transparently states deprecation status, that it remains callable through v2.x, and scheduled removal in v3.0.0. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/fields, usage context, deprecation info. Front-loaded with key action and output. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool, the description covers return values (dim, active flag, chunk count), usage context, deprecation, and alternative. No output schema exists, so the description adequately describes what the agent can expect. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only parameter 'vault' has 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'for a vault' but does not elaborate on the parameter's format, allowed values, or semantics. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the vault identifier context. Baseline of 3 for low coverage with limited compensation.

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 'List all embedding models registered for a vault, with dim, active flag, and how many chunks have been embedded under each.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (embedding models), scope (for a vault), and output fields. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its use before start_shadow_index/switch_active_model.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use before start_shadow_index / switch_active_model.' It also provides an alternative for the deprecated function: 'prefer MCP Resource `vault-memory://models/{vault}`.' This gives clear context and guidance.

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