openmausbot_list_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'without account details,' which is useful context about output scope, but it does not mention pagination, return format, or any other runtime behavior.

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 filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the operation and scope.

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 zero-parameter interface, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers the core need: an agent knows what the call does and that it is safe and idempotent. It could briefly define 'provider instances,' but for a no-argument list, the current context is sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4. The description's clause about 'without account details' reinforces that no account credentials are needed, which adds a slight semantic cue beyond the empty 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 ('List') and resource ('provider instances and models'), making the operation immediately clear. The qualifier 'without account details' scopes the result furtherable. Among sibling list tools (bots, routines, webhooks), the resource is distinct, so an agent can differentiate it without ambiguity.

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 implies a read-only enumeration use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_bots or list_routines. It offers no exclusions or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name.

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