describe_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior—returns metadata, not records—but does not mention error handling, model name matching rules, or access implications. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. The core purpose and the key metadata-versus-records distinction are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

This is a low-complexity introspection tool with one parameter and an output schema available, so the return format does not need to be explained. The description covers the essential distinction. It could be slightly more complete with model-name format guidance, but for this simple tool it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must help clarify the model_name parameter. Saying 'any model' adds value by indicating the parameter is a model identifier rather than a fixed enum. Still, it does not specify naming conventions, accepted model types, or example values.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Describe fields for any model'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from record-returning tools by adding 'this returns metadata, not records', which prevents confusion with sibling detail tools.

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 clear usage context by contrasting metadata with records, which implies this tool is for schema/field introspection rather than data retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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