model_describe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does reasonably well by opening with "Read" to signal a non-mutating operation and enumerating exactly what categories of data come back, including warning classification. It stops short of stating whether output is large, paginated, or requires an open model first.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read action, then the return inventory, then the parameter behavior. The heavy parenthetical lists are dense but each item earns its place as output documentation. Minor readability cost from compressing everything into parentheses.

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 output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly for a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which matters given the many model_* tools in the set.

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 covers the single parameter, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: connectors_of returns connectors with positions and outward normals, and the value can be an object id or "origin". That is more than the schema's terse "object id (or origin)" note.

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?

"Read the 3D model" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical lists of objects, bodies, and warnings make the scope concrete. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like model_query or model_check, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which read tool fits.

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 clause "use it to pick mate targets and edge points" gives a concrete use case for the connectors_of mode. There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus model_query, model_check, or model_view, so tool-level selection is left to inference.

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