Exit submodel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the primary action and the depth parameter's meaning (0 = root), but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or default behavior when depth is omitted. This is adequate for a simple navigation tool but not rich.

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 that front-load the primary action and then clarify the optional parameter. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one optional integer parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context: it states the action and the meaning of the parameter. It implicitly covers the default case (leaving one level) by saying 'Leave the current submodel' and treats depth as an optional jump. This is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 adds meaningful semantics for 'depth' by explaining that it jumps to a specific level and that 0 corresponds to root. This goes beyond the schema's bare min/max constraints, but could further clarify 'level' and default behavior without depth.

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 tool's action: 'Leave the current submodel.' It also specifies the optional depth behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tool 'enter_submodel'. The verb is specific and the resource is explicit.

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 provides clear context for when the tool should be used: whenever you need to leave the current submodel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is self-evident and complementary to 'enter_submodel'.

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