Get Mistral Model Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a small amount of context by implying it returns detail rather than summary data, but doesn't describe what fields are returned, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether it requires authentication.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of informativeness rather than being maximally efficient.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., context length, capabilities, pricing) to help the agent understand the return value.

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% – the single model_id parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or example information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific model'), distinguishing it from list_models and delete_model by being a detail-retrieval operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from other get_* detail tools (get_agent, get_file, get_library) beyond the resource name, and 'detailed information' is vague about what is actually returned.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't tell the agent to use list_models first to find a valid model_id, nor does it mention any constraints. The description provides no context for tool selection.

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