get_all_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get the name and description') and specifies the scope ('all dbt models in the environment'), making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with potential complexity (e.g., handling many models), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like performance considerations. For a tool in this context, it should provide more completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all dbt models in the environment'), specifying what information is retrieved ('name and description'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_model_details' (likely more detailed) and 'get_mart_models' (likely filtered), though not explicitly. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mart_models' or 'get_model_details'. It implies usage for retrieving basic model metadata but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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