request_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, and it does so well. It discloses the return payload (host/notes, plus a start command only if one is on file) and the conditional behavior when the model is already up. It implies a read-only, informational operation by saying it relays content to the user, though it does not explicitly state that no start action is triggered.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence return summary, and a one-sentence conditional behavior note. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what to pass, what to expect in return, and the main conditional case. It does not address what happens if the model is unknown or not registered in the pool, but the presence of an output schema and the clear conditional wording make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 schema has only a 'model' string parameter and no parameter description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds some context by framing 'model' as the identifier of a model that is not currently running, but it does not specify expected values, naming conventions, or where the model identifier comes from. This is partially compensated by the self-explanatory parameter name and the surrounding context.

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 purpose: relay to the user what is needed to bring up a model that is not currently running. It identifies the resource (model) and a specific action (request/relay), and the conditional 'if the model is already up, says so instead' further clarifies scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the unique purpose is recognizable.

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 gives a clear usage condition: use this when a model is not currently running and you need instructions to give the user. It also handles the alternative case by noting that if the model is already up, the tool says so. It does not name alternative tools like list_models or register_model, but the intended context is reasonably explicit.

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