inspect_model

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

The description explains the output (summary string, optionally input file contents) and hints at side effects ('save the model' for show_input_file). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or what happens if the model_id is invalid. With no annotations, the description bears full burden; it partially met it.

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?

The description is efficiently structured like a docstring with a clear summary line, parameter listing, and return type. Every sentence is necessary, and the format is front-loaded and scannable.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no annotations, output type str), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns and the parameters. It lacks explicit error conditions or prerequisite model existence, but for this complexity level it is nearly 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 description coverage is 0%, but the tool description fully explains both parameters: model_id as the id, show_input_file as an optional boolean with default false and behavior. This adds value beyond the schema titles. Minor confusion around 'save the model' could be clarified, but overall strong.

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's function: 'Return a model summary, and optionally the CFAST input file.' The verb 'return' and the resource 'model summary' are specific, and the distinct purpose is evident among sibling tools that focus on creation, modification, or result retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance on when or why to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention context such as 'after creating a model' or 'instead of get_results', leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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