detect_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about precedence between env, config, and arg, what happens when no model is detected, or whether the call is read-only and side-effect free. The mention of resolution sources is the only behavioral hint.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than dense with useful information. The most important detail, the precedence order, is compressed into an ambiguous slash-list.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., the detected model name, or a fallback) and how detection failure is reported, but it does none of this. For a detection tool whose whole value is the resolution logic, this is a notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but 'env/config/arg' only loosely maps to the 'model' parameter and leaves 'project_root' completely unexplained (presumably the location of the config to inspect). Neither parameter's format, defaults, or interaction is clarified.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Detect the model in use') and adds the resolution sources ('env/config/arg'), so an agent knows what the tool returns conceptually. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_model_profile, set_model, or model_decision, which all concern model configuration.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of get_model_profile or model_decision, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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