coeus_list_models

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns inventory; it does not mention whether it is read-only, accesses network resources, can be slow, or what failure modes exist. For a zero-parameter tool this is a lesser gap, but still significant with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word adds meaning, and it is immediately clear what the tool does. This is an exemplary use of brevity for a simple tool.

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?

For a parameterless, schema-less tool, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, with no output schema or annotations, it would benefit from a brief note on return format or source of 'authoritative' data. The missing behavioral details (e.g., read-only guarantee) also reduce completeness, but the simplicity of the tool partially offsets this.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but also does not need to. It appropriately clarifies the resource being returned.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('authoritative model inventory for each configured provider'). It is distinct from many siblings by focusing on model inventory, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar listing/introspection tools like coeus_capabilities or coeus_healthcheck.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent must infer when this is the right tool from the name and description alone.

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