list_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (success status, list of model metadata) and the default path for the workspace, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention potential errors or lack of side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not disclosed.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns format. It front-loads the core purpose in a single sentence and provides parameter and return details without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 with a single optional parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the essential behavior: listing all models, the default directory, and the return structure. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, the coverage is quite 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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name 'workspace' with no description, whereas the description explains its meaning (directory to list models from) and its default (configured temp_dir/models). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. The mention of 'ctx' is extra but clearly flagged as logging context.

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 the tool lists all OpenSCAD model files in the workspace directory, using a specific verb (list), a clear resource (OpenSCAD model files), and scope (workspace directory). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_model (retrieves a single model) and render_single (renders).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use when you need an overview of available models' or 'not for retrieving model content'. The usage context is implied by the wording 'List all', but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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