get_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly details the content returned, implying a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but it does not explicitly mention error behavior, absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads the action and precise payload contents, the second gives a direct usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 operation with a single parameter, the description is largely complete: it explains what will be returned, how the model is identified, and when to invoke the tool. Minor gaps such as explicit error behavior and the response envelope are not critical for this get tool, so it is nearly complete.

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%, with the parameter 'idOrSlug' already documented as 'The model's id or slug (from list_models)'. The description's 'by id or slug' simply reflects the schema and adds no new semantics about format, examples, or required status, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one data model'), and enumerates the exact contents returned: field definitions and the product capability config. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_models (which lists models) by focusing on a single model's full details.

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 explicitly says 'Use before update_model and when the user asks about a model's structure,' providing a concrete trigger condition and naming an alternative tool. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or mention list_models as the alternative for listing, but the singular 'one data model' makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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