session_model_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior such as the default model_part being the solver's main model part, traversal down to `depth`, and included ProcessInfo fields. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, side effects, or permission requirements, though the nature of an 'info' tool implies a safe read.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and then adding scope, returned fields, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described in full, but the description still summarizes key outputs. It covers the important parameters and default behavior, leaving only minor gaps such as session_id semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that `depth` controls how far down sub model parts are traversed and that `model_part` defaults to the solver's main model part. It does not explain the `session_id` parameter or provide format details for model_part 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?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves live model structure information, including counts and ProcessInfo, and explicitly says it can be used to discover valid model_part names. It identifies a specific resource and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as session_get_parameters or session_status.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Use it to discover valid model_part names.' This gives the agent a concrete reason to select the tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related inspection tasks.

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