read_model

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and what is returned (source code + parsed metadata). However, it does not mention error handling for non-existent models, auth requirements, or performance considerations, which would improve transparency further.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No extraneous text or repetition exists. Every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It breaks down the parsed metadata into 'relations, casts, static config', giving the agent useful context. However, it could be slightly more precise about the output format (e.g., raw source code string with metadata as a structured object).

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% as the only parameter 'name' is well-described in the schema ('Model class name (e.g. 'User')'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'full source code of a model file plus parsed metadata (relations, casts, static config)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_migration (migration files), read_file (any file), and list_models (list only) by specifying both source code and parsed metadata.

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 only says 'Read-only' which implies safety but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_models for exploring models or validate_model for checking correctness. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions are present.

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