List 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 the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's one added behavioral fact is that the returned IDs are the accepted values for an agent's `model` parameter, which is genuinely useful but thin. It adds nothing about return shape or volatility.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is appropriate for a trivial single-parameter read. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly weakens clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place the return value is described, and 'Model IDs' is adequate but does not confirm the shape (a list of strings) or whether it is ordered or exhaustive. Combined with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is just enough to call the tool correctly.

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 100% for the single `agent` parameter, so the schema already documents that it takes an agent name from list_agents. The description adds the linkage between the output and the `model` parameter, but no further format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment identifies the resource (model IDs) and the scope (those an agent accepts), which is a specific verb-implied purpose that an agent can act on. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from list_agents by keying on models rather than agents, though the verb 'list/return' is only implied.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no naming of alternatives, and no statement of sequencing (e.g., call before setting the `model` parameter). The link to the `model` parameter hints at usage but leaves the agent to infer it.

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