get_model_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the return content (aggregated totals, head-to-head, per-scenario breakdown) but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 short paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second lists content and usage. Every sentence contributes value, and no unnecessary text is present.

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 output schema, the description partially covers return details but omits parameter explanations. It suits a drill-down stats tool but lacks completeness for data format specifics, which would help an agent interpret results.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter names and types are self-explanatory only by their names. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of connection_id, model, and provider.

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 'Return drill-down stats for a single model' with specific verb and resource. It lists included breakdowns (aggregated totals, head-to-head, per-scenario) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_leaderboard and get_history.

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 context: 'Used by the ranking detail screen when the lobby user presses Enter on a model row.' This indicates when to invoke, but does not offer when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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