mike_model_info

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' as a key behavioral trait and mentions license requirement. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., missing file, invalid model) or output format details.

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?

Description is concise (one sentence with list) and front-loaded with action and output. Could be slightly better structured with bullet points, but overall efficient and clear.

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 tool with one input and no output schema, description adequately lists returned information categories. It is missing explicit output structure or format, but given tool complexity, it is mostly complete.

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% with parameter description 'Path to the MIKE+ .sqlite model database.' The description adds no significant additional meaning beyond specifying it's a .sqlite file. 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 the tool opens a MIKE+ .sqlite model and reports specific metadata (active simulation, unit system, simulation setups, scenarios, element counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mike_run or mike_get_values by focusing on model info.

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?

Describes read-only nature and license requirement, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., mike_get_values for fetching values). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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