ea_get_model_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it explains that resolvedPath is environment detail rather than citable, configurationNote indicates how much is safe to repeat, and it describes the sourceId enum and shadowing semantics. This gives an agent crucial context about what to trust and why, which is not covered by annotations.

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, dense paragraph with field names in backticks. It packs a lot of information efficiently and front-loads the core purpose. While it could be split into bullet points for readability, it is not overly long and every clause adds value. The structure is coherent and no sentence is wasted, warranting a 4.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value. It comprehensively covers all fields (fileName, fileSizeBytes, lastModified, serverVersion, resolvedPath, configuration, sourceId, ignored, shadowed, and notes) and their meanings. An agent would know exactly what to expect without additional context.

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, and the schema has no properties. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity. It fully covers the (empty) schema, so no further parameter explanation is needed.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Report which .qea export file the server has open' and enumerates the specific fields returned (fileName, fileSizeBytes, lastModified, serverVersion, resolvedPath, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ea_search or ea_get_element, which operate on model content rather than file metadata. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies its purpose (checking the server's open export file) but offers no guidance on context or exclusions. Since none of the sibling tools cover the same functionality, the usage is fairly obvious, but the absence of any explicit 'when to use' statement keeps this at a 3 rather than higher.

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