get_model_schema

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description does not contradict these and adds value by specifying that the returned schema includes 'required fields, properties, defaults' and that it represents the 'real' accepted inputs. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, though it could mention more about side effects or response format if any.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose and usage instruction without any fluff. The information is front-loaded, and 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?

For a simple read-only introspection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It supplies enough context for an agent to correctly invoke it as part of a workflow, making it complete for its complexity.

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% — the single 'model' parameter is well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since the schema already covers it. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: 'a model's real input schema (required fields, properties, defaults).' It differentiates from sibling tools like list_models and run_model by indicating this retrieves the actual schema of a model. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this before run_model so inputs match what the model actually accepts,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and a workflow relationship with a sibling tool. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect 5, but the context is strong.

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