tri_model_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool runs the task once per model and returns JSON. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description lacks important behavioral context.

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 sentence, effectively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, bordering on under-specification.

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 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles or expected behavior, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description explains none of the four parameters. It mentions 'task' implicitly but offers no semantics for 'preset', 'context', or 'format_hint'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Run' and specifies the resource: 'the same task through Grok, Gemini, and DeepSeek once each'. It also mentions the output format 'compact JSON with raw model answers'. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like council_model_guide, tri_model_compare, and tri_model_red_team, which suggest different operations.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. The brief statement only implies use when wanting raw answers from these three models, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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