list_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add context by noting the list is 'canonical' and includes 'capability notes,' which hints at the scope and content. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or whether authentication is required. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return the canonical list of chat models') and adds a small detail ('with capability notes'). Every word earns its place, with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential information: what it returns and that it includes capability notes. It does not specify the exact return structure, but for a list endpoint this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because there are none to document.

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 returns 'the canonical list of chat models exposed on the site, with capability notes.' It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('canonical list of chat models'), and the mention of 'capability notes' adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pricing and get_official_links by focusing on models rather than pricing or links.

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 implies usage when one needs the list of chat models, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pricing or get_official_links. It provides no exclusions or cross-references, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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