describe_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses rendering conventions (first row = back, uppercase letters = legend colours) and the levels/all_levels switching behaviour, and 'Summarise' implies a non-mutating read. But it never states this is read-only, what happens with an empty or invalid level list, or whether output is text or image.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the summary contains before the parameter semantics. The parenthetical footnote on row ordering is dense but earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be restated, yet the description attempts it anyway. The real gap is `list_all_parts`, which is undocumented everywhere, plus the absence of any read-only/mutation disclosure for a tool with zero annotations.

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 coverage is 0% and there are three parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `levels` and `all_levels` adequately but says nothing about `list_all_parts`, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb (Summarise) and resource (the model) and enumerates the outputs: bounds, part counts, colour maps. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings that also surface model contents (list_parts, list_colors, render_model), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives a conditional for one parameter (maps shown for `levels`, or every level when all_levels is set), which implies usage, but never says when to reach for this tool versus list_parts, list_colors or render_model. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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