get_language_model_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read via 'Get' but says nothing about return format, whether it is user/workspace scoped, auth requirements, or how 'purpose' changes visibility; the optional parameter's effect is left entirely to the schema.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than purely earning 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 one-optional-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, little extra prose is strictly required. However, given the dense cluster of sibling model-listing tools, the description is not complete enough to let an agent route correctly without consulting other tools' schemas.

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 single optional enum parameter ('purpose' with 'use'/'configure', described as 'Optional provider visibility purpose') is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which puts it at the baseline of 3.

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 verb ('Get') and a resource ('language (LLM) model options'), so it is more than a tautology. But 'options' is ambiguous in a sibling set that already contains list_models, list_enabled_models, list_enabled_providers and get_embedding_model_options, and the description never clarifies what makes these 'options' distinct.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like list_models, list_enabled_models, and get_embedding_model_options, an agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool over them, and no exclusions are stated.

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