List models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no secrets', adding a modest assurance about credential exposure, but discloses nothing further about return shape or enumeration 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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose and the CLI backing command come first, followed by the safety note. Appropriately sized for a zero-argument tool.

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 parameterless, read-only enumeration tool with full annotation coverage, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The only minor gap is the absence of any hint about how results are used (e.g. feeding a model name into grok_delegate).

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required by framing the action as a simple listing.

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+resource: 'List available models', reinforced by the CLI command `grok models`. This distinguishes it from the agent/session/delegate siblings, which all relate to running or managing agents rather than enumerating models. Lacks any explicit sibling contrast, but the resource is distinct enough to be unambiguous.

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 no indication of when to call this tool versus the many grok_agent_* and grok_delegate_* siblings, nor that it is typically used to discover valid model identifiers before delegating work. Usage is only weakly implied by the resource name.

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