list_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the returned fields (dim, active, embedded chunk counts) and the deprecation lifecycle through v2.x with removal in v3.0.0. It does not cover edge cases such as an unknown vault, but the added lifecycle and output detail are substantial.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return fields, followed by usage guidance and deprecation details. Every sentence earns its place; there is 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes return fields and clearly communicates deprecation and an alternative resource. The main remaining gap is the undocumented vault parameter, but overall the definition is largely complete.

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 0%, and the only parameter (vault) is not explained in the schema. The description says the models are registered 'for a vault' but does not specify the expected vault identifier format or behavior for an invalid/missing vault, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing embedding models registered for a vault, including the fields dim, active flag, and embedded chunk counts. It also names related sibling tools (start_shadow_index, switch_active_model), making it easy to distinguish from other list/search tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool before start_shadow_index / switch_active_model, and it clearly states that the tool is deprecated in favor of the MCP Resource vault-memory://models/{vault} for agent discovery. This gives both when-to-use and when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance.

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