diana_model_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that the summary includes the active unit system with the caveat that DIANA has no fixed units, and that validation issues from validateModel('ALL') are folded into the output. That is meaningful behavioral information an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by a compact enumeration of contents. The parenthetical about DIANA units is slightly intrusive mid-list but carries real information. Little is wasted, though splitting the units caveat into its own clause would read more cleanly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still enumerates the covered areas plus the validation-issue inclusion. For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete; only the relationship to the snapshot/diff siblings is left unstated.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The schema is an empty object and nothing in the description misrepresents it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('the open project'), then enumerates the exact content covered: dimension, aspects, shapes, materials, geometries, groups, load cases, analyses with commands, units, and validation issues. The scope is concrete enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with diana_model_snapshot or diana_model_diff, which are the closest alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the open project' (a project must be open) and by the mention of validateModel('ALL') issues, which hints at a pre-solve inspection workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to diana_model_snapshot/diana_model_diff as alternatives for related inspection needs.

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