fish_get_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool returns a 'JSON response from /fish/model/{id}', giving a minimal glimpse into the HTTP call and return format. However, it does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or required permissions, which is a minor gap for a read-only operation but acceptable given the simplicity.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences totaling under 20 words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and return type without any unnecessary prose.

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 trivial complexity, a complete parameter schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies the action and the endpoint. However, it lacks a mention of how this relates to sibling tools like fish_list_models, which would help an agent decide when to use this tool. This is a minor gap, but otherwise the description covers all essential context.

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 model_id with a clear description, so the schema fully explains its meaning. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond that, meeting the baseline but providing no extra value.

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 function: 'Get a Fish voice model by ID.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'by ID' explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fish_list_models. The return note about the endpoint adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 usage when you need a specific model by ID, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like fish_list_models or fish_get_task. It does not mention any exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, so the usage context is only inferred from the tool's name and parameter requirements.

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