get_submodels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the read-only HTTP GET behavior via 'Corresponds to GET /submodels' and the 'all' scope, indicating no filtering. It does not detail auth needs or pagination, but these are less critical for a simple read operation and the output schema covers return structure.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the endpoint mapping is provided in a clear, compact format. 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 simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema for return values, and the clear endpoint mapping, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No crucial behavioral or contextual gaps remain.

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% for the single 'host' parameter, which already includes a description and default. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 'Retrieves all Submodels from the AAS server' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. The endpoint 'GET /submodels' reinforces the exact operation, distinguishing it from singular get_submodel and reference-focused get_submodel_refs.

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 implies usage for retrieving all submodels but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_submodel or get_submodel_refs. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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