SunsetDiff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup by saying "Look up," but does not mention permissions, error behavior when a model id is unknown, rate limits, or how provider affects the lookup.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is concise and easy to scan, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 low-complexity two-parameter lookup, the description gives the core purpose and names several return fields. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, it remains incomplete regarding the provider parameter and behavioral expectations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions the model id but gives no meaning for the optional "provider" parameter and does not clarify how the two parameters interact.

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 and resource: "Look up" a model by "model id," and lists the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as upcoming_shutdowns or migration_diff.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. A reader can infer it is for checking a single model id, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Return" implies a read-only operation and the default replacement behavior is disclosed, but details such as permissions, error behavior, and what the diff contains are absent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key default behavior. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves important gaps that additional wording could fill.

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 two parameters with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the required from_model_id, the return shape, failure cases, or how the diff is scoped.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that omitting to_model_id defaults to the official replacement, but it does not describe the required from_model_id or clarify the format and meaning of either model identifier.

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 and resource: "Return the migration diff for a model." This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like check_model, scan_text, and upcoming_shutdowns, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 sentence "Defaults to the official replacement" clarifies the optional to_model_id behavior but does not explain when to use this tool versus check_model or other siblings. There are no explicit usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the search intent but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether it reports positions or counts, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter 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 simple scan tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the purpose but omits return-value behavior and result interpretation. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent guessing about output semantics.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'text' parameter, but the description implies that 'text' is the input to scan. It does not add details about expected format, size, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Find known model ids in text.' It also adds the condition 'deprecated or shutting down,' so the agent can understand the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_model or upcoming_shutdowns.

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 scanning text for deprecated model IDs but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as check_model or upcoming_shutdowns.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only models with an 'exact' shutdown date are included (implying estimated/unknown dates are excluded), and 'List' signals a read-only operation, but it says nothing about defaults, ordering, or result limits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the missing parameter and usage guidance rather than being a model of structure.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves substantial gaps: the meaning of the 'provider' filter, the default value of 'days' when omitted (0 required parameters), and what the returned model records contain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description only indirectly explains 'days' as N; the 'provider' parameter is never mentioned, so an agent must guess its role (filter? exact match? case sensitivity?). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('models') with a clear qualifying condition (an exact shutdown date within the next N days). An agent can tell what it returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_model or migration_diff.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'next N days' phrasing. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus check_model or migration_diff, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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