run_model

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. 'Runs a model' implies an action but reveals nothing about execution behavior—such as whether it's read-only or destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns outputs, or handles errors. This lack of information is critical for a tool that likely performs a core operation like model execution.

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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Runs a model', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.

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 complexity of running a model (likely a key operation), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide essential context such as execution behavior, output expectations, or error handling, making it inadequate for the tool's presumed role.

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 one parameter 'model_name' with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description 'Runs a model' does not add any meaning about this parameter—it does not explain what 'model_name' refers to, valid formats, or how it influences execution. This leaves the parameter entirely undocumented.

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 'Runs a model' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'run_model', providing no additional specificity. It does not clarify what 'running' entails (e.g., execution, simulation, inference) or what resource is involved (e.g., a specific model type or system). This minimal statement fails to distinguish the tool from potential alternatives like 'list_models' or 'get_model_info'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_models', 'get_model_info', 'duplicate_model', and 'upload_model', there is no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on selecting the correct tool for a given task.

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