get_model_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It lists the data fields returned (title, path, project information, active view, element counts), which gives insight into output content. Yet it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, nor mention any performance characteristics or error behavior.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then enumerates its key data components. There is no redundancy or unnecessary filler, making it highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter overview tool without an output schema, the description covers the major return fields and gives a clear sense of what information is available. It could be slightly more specific about which 'common categories' are counted, but overall it is sufficient for basic tool selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain input semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on the output, which is the main relevant aspect for selection.

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 the tool provides an 'Overview of the open model' and lists the included components (title, path, project information, active view, element counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower aspects like categories or levels, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 implies usage when a general model overview is needed, and the listed content suggests it is a catch-all tool compared to more specific siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the decision partially to inference.

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