rails_lens_introspect_model

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by detailing what the tool returns (dependencies like associations, callbacks, etc.) and the usage purpose, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe any additional behavioral traits, but the annotations already cover safety. Score 4.

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 two sentences: the first states the function, the second gives usage advice. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action. Perfectly concise and 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 that the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and annotations are present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and lists the dependency types. It could mention the optional 'sections' parameter briefly, but overall it is adequate for this complexity. Score 4.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (model_name with example, sections with default). The tool description adds value by listing the types of dependencies (associations, callbacks, etc.), which gives meaning to what 'sections' might include. Despite context signals indicating 0% schema description coverage, the actual schema has descriptions, so the bar is lowered. The tool description enhances understanding beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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 that the tool returns all dependencies of a model (associations, callbacks, etc.), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rails_lens_analyze_impact or rails_lens_dependency_graph, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Before changing a model, be sure to check the scope of impact with this tool.' This tells the agent when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it scores 4.

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