models

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

The description implies idempotent read behavior by stating 'list available AI models', but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention idempotency. With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second specifies return values. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters and a simple listing task, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. The presence of an output schema (even if not shown) means return details can be inferred, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as it does not detract.

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 available AI models' using a specific verb and resource. It further specifies return fields (names, aliases, provider, configuration), making the purpose explicit and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'chat' or 'compare' which are interactive.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (chat, codereview, etc.) but the description does not mention them or provide context for selecting this tool. For a simple listing, this omission is less critical but still a gap.

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