list_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 safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context about output scope—fields, relations, and optional short overview—but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or performance characteristics.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is clearly structured and each sentence earns its place without 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, this description is complete. It documents both optional parameters, states the resource scope, and needs no additional return-value detail because the output schema exists.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains both parameters with concrete semantics and an example: app_label restricts to a single app, and include_fields toggles field-level detail. This goes well beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the project's models with their fields and relations.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like explain_model or find_n_plus_one by stating exactly what this tool returns.

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 Args section provides clear guidance on how to customize the call: restrict to one app via app_label, omit for all apps, and set include_fields to False for a short overview. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for this simple listing tool.

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