List models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (none), explains the routing key's effect on lanes, and specifies the output shape as OpenAI-compatible. It lacks details on error handling or the meaning of 'lanes,' but for a simple read-only list, this is strong.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('OpenAI-shaped model list from the gateway'), and adds only essential details (auth, routing key behavior). No redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the source, output format, auth, and parameter behavior. 'OpenAI-shaped' hints at the return structure, making the description sufficient for effective use.

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 schema provides no description for routing_key (0% coverage), but the description says 'with a routing key it reflects that key's lanes,' which gives the parameter clear purpose. It could be more explicit about optionality, but the single parameter is adequately explained.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('models') with the qualifier 'OpenAI-shaped,' making it clear this returns a model catalog from the gateway. It distinguishes itself from siblings like proxyllm_list_routing_keys by focusing on models, not keys or usage.

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 states 'No auth required,' which is an explicit usage condition, and explains that supplying a routing key alters the output to reflect that key's lanes, including the live Codex catalog. It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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