列出视觉模型

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a useful behavioral detail: it does not return API keys. This goes beyond the annotation by informing the agent about a privacy safeguard, but otherwise does not disclose other behaviors like output format details (though output schema exists).

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?

A single, concise sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action and key output scope while mentioning the API key exclusion. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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, parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and a critical constraint (no API key). It is complete for the agent to invoke correctly without further documentation.

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 schema is already complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-specific meaning since there are none. Baseline 4 applies due to no parameters.

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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (configured vision model profiles plus current default), distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze images/videos. It also adds a security-relevant detail (does not return API key), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 use when you need to see available vision model profiles, and the sibling names (analyze_image, analyze_video) make the distinction obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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