List available models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists models and can be used to verify the API key works, implying an authentication check. It does not mention any side effects or destructive behavior, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient. The description adds value beyond the bare 'List available models' title by noting the key-verification aspect.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence explains practical usage. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (per context), and the description explains both what it does and when to use it, nothing essential is missing. An agent can call this tool correctly without additional information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty input schema with 100% coverage means there is nothing to compensate for.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'models this API key can use', and mentions release dates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (jev_classify, jev_ask, jev_score, jev_check) which are all operations, not listing tools. An agent can immediately understand the tool's function and scope.

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: to confirm the key works and to find a model ID before assuming one exists. This gives clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent knows this is a preliminary step before other operations.

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