list_registered_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat these. The description 'List models' is consistent with a safe, idempotent read operation. It adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., about pagination or result ordering), but given the strong annotation coverage, the minimal description meets the baseline.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 presence of an output schema, a well-documented parameter schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'registered model' versus other model states (e.g., champion models) or whether any implicit scoping exists. However, for a simple list operation, the essentials are covered, so it is minimally complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (limit) and the schema fully describes it with default and meaning (100% coverage). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It neither clarifies nor obscures the parameter.

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 'List models in the Model Repository' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (models in the Model Repository). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_jobs or list_ml_projects by naming the resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other model-related listing tools, but the resource name is sufficient.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other listing tools or model-specific actions like register_ml_champion_model. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or typical use cases. Without any contextual hints, an agent may not know when this is the appropriate choice.

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