semantic_model_get_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that only details such as name, ID, and description are returned, and explicitly excludes the definition. This helps set agent expectations beyond the annotation alone.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence communicates the action, the scope of the result, and an important exclusion. Every part is useful, and the key limitation is front-loaded for quick 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?

For a simple read-only getter with two clearly documented required parameters, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It names the type of data returned and explicitly notes what is not returned. Without an output schema, slightly more detail about the return shape would be ideal, but the description is sufficient for a typical agent.

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%, and both parameters have straightforward descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('details ... of a specific semantic model'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from definition-returning tools by stating 'does not return the definition', which separates it from siblings like semantic_model_get_bim and semantic_model_get_tmdl.

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 conveys that this tool is for fetching metadata details, not the model definition. The negative statement implies that get_bim/get_tmdl should be used when the definition is needed, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly. Clear enough for basic routing among siblings.

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