get_model_xml

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

The existing annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already confirms the tool is read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as authorization needs, response size, or idempotency. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence of 13 words that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information.

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 tool with 4 optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context ('for preview'). However, it could further explain when this XML representation is distinct from the model data accessible through other tools.

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 input schema covers 100% of the 4 parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score 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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'XMILE XML representation of the current model', with the parenthetical '(for preview)' clarifying its intended use. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like 'read_model' or 'simulate'.

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 vaguely indicates the tool is for preview, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'read_model' or 'inspect_model'. No when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative references are provided.

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