zcode_default_modelRead the provider, model, and optional reasoning level used when zcode_task has no model override, so you can verify the default settings.
Read the provider, model, and optional reasoning level used when zcode_task has no model override.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| configured | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden, but for a zero-parameter read operation the safety surface is small. It states what is returned but does not say what happens when no default has been set or whether any permission is needed, leaving modest gaps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the returned fields and the condition under which they apply. Every clause earns its place, with zero filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and with no parameters the call surface is trivial. The only minor omission is the edge case of no default model being configured (null vs. error), which an agent might want to know.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly frames the call as requiring no input.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Read the provider, model, and optional reasoning level' for the bridge default model. It even scopes the resource semantically ('used when zcode_task has no model override'), which distinguishes it from siblings like zcode_set_default_model, zcode_clear_default_model, and zcode_model_catalog.
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 phrase 'used when zcode_task has no model override' implies the context of use (inspecting the fallback model), but the description never states explicitly when an agent should call this versus sibling read tools such as zcode_model_catalog or zcode_status, nor any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.