get_model_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only via 'Get' and mentions the file must be open, but does not state that it is non-destructive, whether any permissions are needed, or how large the returned lists might be—critical behavioral context is missing.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and return contents, followed by a precise parameter note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no waste.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, read-only overview) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to supply the instance. The only shortfall is the absence of sibling differentiation, which is more of a usage-guideline gap.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the sole parameter: 'instance' is the file's display name (or port), and it tells the agent where to get it (list_open_files). This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get an overview') and resource ('data model'), and enumerates the exact contents returned (table/measure/relationship counts plus full lists). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_tables or list_measures, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Implies usage as an overview and helpfully points to list_open_files for obtaining the instance, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many individual list_* siblings, nor any when-not conditions.

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