read_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it loads the file as the current model, implying a session state change, but doesn't disclose side effects such as overwriting unsaved changes to the current model or any session-specific behavior. This is minimal extra context beyond the annotations.

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: 'Read an existing .stmx file and load it as the current model'. Every word contributes to understanding the action and outcome, with no redundant or filler content.

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 that an output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It could be more complete by noting what happens to the existing current model on load, but this is a minor gap given the schema annotations. The tool is part of a larger model-management set, and the description provides enough for an agent to understand basic invocation.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four fields, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond referencing the .stmx file, relying entirely on schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'read' with the resource '.stmx file' and clearly states the effect 'load it as the current model'. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_model (new model) and load_template (template), and from inspect_model which does not change state.

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 implies usage for opening an existing .stmx file into the session, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like create_model or load_template. It doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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