list_models

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

The annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds one useful detail: API providers are returned under an apiProviders array. It does not describe further behavioral aspects like ordering or how aliases/defaults are structured, but given the annotation coverage this is adequate.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation and filter behavior, and the apiProviders note adds useful return-structure context. The enumerated provider list duplicates the schema enum somewhat, but the overall size is still appropriate.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the core usage is adequately covered. However, with no output schema, the description only partially explains the result shape and does not distinguish this tool from list_available_models, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema already documents the single cli parameter with an enum and description, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description's phrase 'or an enabled API provider name' conflicts with the enum, which only allows the seven listed values. This is misleading and could cause an agent to submit a value that fails schema validation.

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 identifies a read-only listing operation over models, aliases, and defaults, and explains the optional provider filter. It is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool list_available_models, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parameter-level guidance: pass a provider name to filter, or omit it to list all providers. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the similarly named sibling list_available_models, leaving tool selection partly implied.

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