bdesign_generation_model_get

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'Read', so there is no contradiction. It adds the detail that the response includes 'defaults and accepted parameters', which provides useful context about the return content. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as error handling, required permissions, or response format, though the annotation already covers the safety profile.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what the parameter represents and what the response looks like. It mentions 'defaults and accepted parameters' as part of the return, but does not explain the parameter or provide any usage context. An agent cannot fully understand how to call this tool correctly without additional inference.

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 a single parameter 'modelId' with no description (coverage 0%). The description does not explicitly explain that modelId is the identifier for the logical model. It says 'one logical model' but does not connect it to the parameter. This forces the agent to infer that modelId is the model's ID, which is not explicitly stated. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('one logical model'), and mentions what is included ('defaults and accepted parameters'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bdesign_generation_models (which likely lists models) by the singular 'one'. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or differentiate beyond that.

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 for retrieving a single model but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus listing tools or other siblings. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned. The phrase 'one logical model' suggests it is for a specific model, but there is no direct statement of when not to use it.

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