discover_models

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Discover' implies a safe read operation and 'local instance' tells the agent the source is the local router rather than a remote registry, but nothing is said about whether results are cached, how fresh they are, or whether the call has side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (models, capabilities, local instance) contributes information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation in the description. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer about scoping behavior and result freshness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter, workspace_path, is completely undocumented. The description does not explain whether workspace_path scopes which models are discovered or whether leaving it null means a global discovery, leaving a meaningful ambiguity unaddressed.

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 names a clear verb and resource ('Discover available models and their capabilities') with a stated scope ('local 9Router instance'), which separates it cleanly from sibling tools like get_model_usage. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can identify it.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to know which models exist before selecting one. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_model_usage.

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