List available Jev models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive action. The description adds extra context about the tool's output, specifically the alias mapping and the reporting of the versioned ID in the response's 'model' field. This goes beyond the schematic annotations without conflicting with them.

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, with the primary purpose in the first half and additional details in the second. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List the model names').

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 that the tool has no parameters and annotations cover read-only and idempotency, the description provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect in the response. It does not mention pagination or response format beyond naming the fields, but that is acceptable for a simple list operation. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 schema is effectively empty. The description correctly omits any parameter details because there are none to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('model names'), with details on what is included (descriptions, release dates, alias mappings). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jev_ask or jev_score, which are action-oriented.

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. However, it clearly implies its purpose as the listing tool for models, which is distinct from the other operations. No exclusions or comparisons are given, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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