semantic_model_get_tmdl

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses a meaningful side effect: it writes all TMDL files to the output directory and preserves folder structure. This is important behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, and it is consistent with the read-only nature of the source operation.

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 no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately, and the second explains the side effect and return value. Every phrase 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 moderate-complexity retrieval tool, the description covers the format, local file-writing behavior, folder preservation, and return value. It does not explain whether the output directory must exist or whether existing files are overwritten, but the annotations and full parameter schema cover the remaining essentials.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about the output being a list of files written, but it does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents for workspaceId, semanticModelId, and outputDirectoryPath.

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 action ('Get the definition of a semantic model'), a specific resource (semantic model), and a specific format (TMDL). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like semantic_model_get_bim and semantic_model_get_details, so an agent can select it 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 and 'LLM-friendly' phrasing imply this tool is for retrieving a semantic model definition in TMDL form. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention the alternative BIM/get-details tools, leaving the choice somewhat to inference.

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