list_models

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does usefully note that ollama providers return size, parameter count, quantization and capabilities. It says nothing about auth, pagination, or failure behavior for remote providers, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the workflow hint following immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, provider scope, and an intended follow-up workflow. The main omission is broader return-shape description for non-ollama providers, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'provider' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default and 'all' semantics. The description only restates the provider scoping concept, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list models) scoped to a provider, which is concrete and actionable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similarly-named siblings like list_model_tags, search_models, or recommend_model, so an agent must infer the difference from the description's VRAM-selection framing.

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?

Gives clear intended use: pair with get_system_resources to pick the biggest model that fits VRAM, naming a companion tool explicitly. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g., vs. search_models or list_model_tags), so the routing is only partially resolved.

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