list sync models

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, yet the description adds real behavioral context: no pagination, newest-first ordering, deprecated models excluded, feature-flagged models only shown where enabled, and the caveat that a listed model can still be refused at creation (react-1 without a paid plan). It also warns that some listed models serve other workflows, so lip sync should pick a lipsync model.

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 return shape and the routing to sibling tools come first, which is the right order, and there is no filler. The later sentences are long and compound, packing eligibility caveats and the voices exclusion into dense clauses, which costs a little readability.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (fields and ordering), what is omitted, and which downstream tools depend on the result. Nothing an agent needs to call and use this correctly is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no schema semantics to supplement; the description instead constrains how the output is consumed ("Pass a returned name exactly as listed and never invent one"). That is useful, but it is guidance about output usage rather than parameter meaning, so it stays at the zero-parameter baseline.

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?

"List the sync. models this account can see, newest first, in one unpaged array" gives a specific verb, resource, ordering, and shape, and then enumerates the returned fields (name, type, version, description, feature tags). It explicitly separates itself from the nearest sibling with "Not for voices; use voices_list."

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?

Names the exact consumers of the returned value (dubbing_create, dialogue-videos_create, dialogue-videos_estimate, generations_estimate-cost) and the override case for lipsync_create / lipsync_create-timeline. It also states a when-not condition: "it is not needed when the user has not asked for a model on those two."

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