get_model_xml

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds minimal extra behavior: it only notes the 'preview' intent. It does not disclose that auto_layout or resolve_layout_violations are performed before export, but those are visible in the schema and no contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word carries meaning: 'Get', 'XMILE XML representation', 'current model', and 'for preview'. There is zero filler.

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 a readOnly annotation, an output schema, and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward export tool. It could improve by naming an alternative for non-preview exports, but the current level is adequate.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and names a precise resource: 'the XMILE XML representation of the current model'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_diagram or inspect_model, and the parenthetical '(for preview)' adds useful intent.

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 phrase 'for preview' gives a clear usage context—this is the tool to call when you need an XMILE XML preview of the model. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide basic selection among the long sibling list.

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