describe_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the content included (fields, relations, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure, but safety profile and side effects are unaddressed.

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 that front-loads the key purpose ('Full JSON detail for one model') and lists all relevant components. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

The description names the types of information returned (fields, relations, Meta, base classes, file path), which is useful given the output schema exists. However, it fails to explain how to specify the model parameter (format) and does not address any prerequisites or constraints, leaving gaps for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 single parameter 'model' (string) has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not clarify the expected format (e.g., app_label.ModelName) beyond stating it identifies a model. The description fails to add meaning for the parameter, which is a significant gap given the lack of schema documentation.

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 returns 'Full JSON detail for one model' and lists specific components (fields, relations, Meta, base classes, file path). It distinguishes from siblings like 'er_diagram' and 'list_models' by focusing on a single model's detailed content.

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 full details of a single model but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings (e.g., use find_relations for relations only, list_models for overview). No exclusions or context signals are provided.

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