读取模型约束

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the substantive point that the payload is a constraint specification rather than model metadata, but gives no further behavioral detail. That is adequate given the annotation coverage, not generous.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target come first and the enumerated outputs follow. It is dense rather than bloated, though the enumeration consumes the space that could have documented scene_code.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is real: one of two required parameters is undocumented and there is no routing guidance among 57 siblings, which for a two-parameter lookup tool leaves the definition merely 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 0% with two required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains model_code only obliquely ('指定实时model_code'), and scene_code — also required — is never mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess its role in scoping the lookup.

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?

Specific verb '读取' paired with a specific resource (the real-time model identified by model_code), and it enumerates the constraint categories returned: account availability, resolution, aspect ratio, duration, input modes. This distinguishes it from the list-style sibling pavo_list_models, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Use is only implied: you call it when you already have a model_code and need its constraints. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pavo_list_models, no prerequisite that the code must come from a prior listing call, and no note about what happens for an unknown code.

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