workbench_select_model

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

No annotations provided; description only states it selects a model tier and writes a file. No disclosure of side effects (e.g., overwriting files), permissions, or read/write characteristics. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 very concise (one sentence), but this conciseness comes at the expense of necessary detail. It is not overly long, but it is incomplete.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what the output file contains, or the role of any parameter. Output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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 14 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description does not mention any parameters or explain how project, task_type, risk, etc., influence model selection. No semantic meaning added beyond the schema.

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 states the verb 'Select' and the resource 'Workbench model tier', and specifies output 'write model_selection.json'. It distinguishes from siblings like workbench_select_policy_pack, but lacks detail on inputs and selection criteria.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is silent on usage context.

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