model_context_window

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

The description indicates a read-only query operation and clarifies that the result is a token count. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose behavior for unknown models, accepted model identifier formats, or whether any special permissions are needed.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the core operation adequately. Still, it omits how to source valid model names and lacks any usage guidance, which are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 schema has no description coverage for the required 'model' parameter, and the tool description only says '某个模型' (a certain model), adding no meaningful information about valid values, format, or how to obtain model identifiers. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('查询' / query) and a clear resource ('某个模型的上下文窗口容量' / a model's context window capacity). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_known_models and migrate_session.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, it does not mention that valid model names could come from list_known_models, nor does it explain when migration or listing would be more appropriate.

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