speckle_model_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns detailed info and full version history, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it address potential response size or other side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly reinforced.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key output details. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. The tool is simple with two required parameters, and the description clearly states what it does. It does not explicitly mention parameter relationships, but the sibling tools and schema context mitigate this gap. Overall, it is adequately complete for a 'get details' operation.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not mention project_id or model_id at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer the relationship between project and model.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed model info'), and adds distinguishing details such as 'full version history with author, date, and commit messages.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list models or projects, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 detailed model information and full version history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tool names suggest alternatives, but no direct guidance is provided in the description itself.

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