agtask_call_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: calls are billed per token and deducted from the agent's balance, and vendor API keys are not required (auth handled by the gateway). It says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, model availability, or return format.

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 compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the billing caveat in a parenthetical. No filler and nothing an agent must wade through.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its cost/auth model. It stops short of what an agent calling an LLM would want: response shape, streaming, and error/billing-failure behavior.

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 100% — model, prompt, and system are each documented inline (including the default-model fallback). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: calling an LLM through the AGTask unified gateway, with the billing mechanism named. It is clearly distinct from siblings like agtask_get_model_config or agtask_set_default_model, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

"无需自备各厂商 API Key" is a convenience/benefit statement rather than usage guidance; there is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives or any prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the tool to pick whenever it needs an LLM response.

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