semantic_model_get_bim

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine value beyond them: it flags the operation as long-running, discloses the side effect of writing model.bim to an output file path, and states the return value. The file write does not contradict readOnlyHint since the semantic model resource itself is not mutated.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the behavioral caveat (long-running) and the side effect/return. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, the file-write side effect, the long-running behavior, and — since there is no output schema — the return value. The only notable gap is explicit routing guidance to semantic_model_get_tmdl or get_details.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds slight value by tying outputFilePath to the write behavior, but workspaceId and semanticModelId gain nothing beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the documentation load.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('semantic model'), and the output format ('TMSL/BIM JSON'), plus 'full definition'. This cleanly distinguishes it from semantic_model_get_tmdl (TMDL format), semantic_model_get_details (summary), and semantic_model_update_bim (mutation). An agent can identify the right tool without opening schemas.

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 format qualifier and 'full definition' imply when this tool is appropriate, and the '(long-running)' marker hints that lightweight alternatives like get_details may be preferable for quick reads. However, it never explicitly names sibling alternatives or states when not to use it, so routing is partly left to inference.

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