health_checkRun a tiny generation on every eligible target in parallel to verify model health. Confirm billable usage before starting.
Run a tiny real generation on every eligible target in parallel. Requires confirm_billable=true; may consume provider quota or credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm_billable | Yes | Must be true: acknowledges one billable call per eligible target. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / confirm_billableAdded value: +{
+ "const": true,
+ "description": "Must be true: acknowledges one billable call per eligible target.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "confirm_billable"
+]v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: it performs a real generation, runs in parallel, targets every eligible target, and may consume provider quota or credits. This makes the side-effect profile clear, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then states the prerequisite and consequence. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter billable tool, the description covers the action, scope, prerequisite, and side effects, which is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The main gaps are that 'eligible target' is not defined and there is no output-schema or return-value description, though these are not critical for invocation.
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 100% and the sole parameter confirm_billable is already described as 'Must be true: acknowledges one billable call per eligible target.' The description repeats the requirement but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific action ('Run a tiny real generation') and scope ('on every eligible target in parallel'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like verify_model or discover_models, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 hard prerequisite ('Requires confirm_billable=true') and a caution ('may consume provider quota or credits'), but it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The intended usage context is only implied by the name and billing note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.