list_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists models and their attributes, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly declare side effects, access requirements, or other behavioral traits. It does add useful detail about the content returned (capabilities, default model, config).

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 with the action front-loaded. It contains no filler and earns its place by naming the exact scope and content.

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 (zero parameters, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description is complete. It covers all key aspects: what is listed, the server scope, and the type of information returned.

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 are zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description provides a clear overview without needing to compensate for schema gaps.

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 models supported by the server along with capabilities, default model, and configuration. The verb 'list' and resource 'models' are specific, and the sibling tools are generation/video tools, making the purpose distinct. However, it does not explicitly mention how it differs from siblings, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for checking available models before using generation tools, but there are no clear exclusions or comparisons provided.

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