list_models

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

Annotations already mark readOnly=true and destructive=false; the description adds useful behavior beyond that by stating it is configuration-only, not live availability, and requires no network, credentials, or base URL. This gives an agent confidence that the call is safe and offline.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core purpose is stated first and the behavioral scope follows. 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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what the tool returns, what it does not include, and its execution context. No output schema or parameter details are needed for an agent to call this 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot meaningfully add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to document, and the description confirms the call takes no external inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('configured model groups and the tools that use them'), and immediately scopes the result to configuration only. This clearly distinguishes it from the image-generation siblings.

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 gives clear context: use it to inspect configuration, and it explicitly says it does not report live availability or use network, credentials, or base URL. It doesn't name an alternative because no sibling performs this function, but the guidance is otherwise sufficient.

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