Select TraeCN Model

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the specific no-op detail and the important fact that it does not wait for model availability or capacity. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful behavioral context without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by two concise behavioral notes. 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers all essential operational aspects: the source of valid values, no-op behavior, and non-blocking execution. No critical information is missing for correct 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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'model' is already described as 'Exact model name as returned by traecn_list_models'. The tool description reiterates this exact phrasing but offers no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (select), the resource (model), and the exact source (from traecn_list_models). It distinguishes from siblings like traecn_select_mode (mode vs model) and list_models (list vs select) without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly refers to traecn_list_models as the source of valid names, giving a clear prerequisite. It also notes the no-op behavior for the already-active model. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when selecting a mode instead), though the name and context make that clear.

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