list_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: enumerates all providers (API-key and CLI-based) and states the output is model IDs for use with configure_council. No contradiction, but it doesn't mention potential provider errors or pagination 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by an actionable next step. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema; the description gives provider scope and integration context. It doesn't explicitly specify the return format, but 'returned model IDs' is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully covers the only parameter (filter_provider) with a list of allowed values. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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'), names the resource ('AI models'), and specifies scope ('across every configured provider' with an explicit list). It clearly differentiates from sibling configuration/query tools as the discovery operation.

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 usage when needing to discover available models, explicitly stating to use the returned model IDs when calling configure_council. It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, but the context among siblings is clear enough.

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