models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), it shows loaded vs. configured status, and it includes routing logic. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, which could be relevant for a tool querying system resources.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, returns) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the 'WHEN TO USE' bullets provide context, and the 'Returns' section clarifies output without 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns, with the output schema handling detailed return structure. This covers all necessary context for a simple listing tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('List all configured models') and resource ('across all GPU backends'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_model_info_tool' (likely for single model details) and 'switch_model' (for changing models). It also specifies what information is included: model tiers and loaded status.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists three scenarios for using this tool: checking available models, verifying configurations, and understanding routing logic. This provides clear guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_model_info_tool' for detailed info on a specific model.

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