inspect_model

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a structured summary and that the model_id defaults to the current model, but this is mostly reiterated from the schema. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as return size, performance considerations, or potential limitations, so the added value beyond annotations is modest.

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 conveys the core purpose without any redundant words. It is concise and well-structured, with every word earning its place.

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 presence of a full output schema, complete input schema descriptions, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward inspection tool. It could enhance completeness by mentioning when to prefer this over validate_model or get_model_xml, but it is not severely lacking.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including optionality and defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, landing at the baseline score.

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 'Return' and the resource 'structured summary of the current model', with the purpose 'for agent inspection'. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_model or validate_model, which could also serve inspection purposes.

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 agent inspection' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for inspecting the model's current state. However, it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, so it only partially guides the agent in tool selection.

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