dojo_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 behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool provides 'guidance,' it doesn't clarify whether this is informational (read-only), interactive, or involves any side effects like creating/modifying files. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides specific usage examples. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no wasted text or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the 'what' and 'when' aspects. However, as a tool with no annotations, it lacks details about behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions), making it incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without attempting to describe nonexistent parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.

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 as providing 'specialized guidance for creating and working with Dojo models' and lists specific activities like defining data structures, creating model schemas, implementing model traits, and understanding relationships/constraints. This gives a comprehensive view of what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dojo_config or dojo_logic.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this when you need to define data structures, create model schemas, implement model traits, or understand model relationships and constraints'), which gives practical guidance. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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