hf_get_model_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior (HF API if not indexed) and outlines what is returned (bank positions, anchor set, etc.). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the context of a 'get' tool implies no destructive effects. Slightly above average due to fallback explanation.

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 very concise: two sentences total. The first sentence immediately states the main purpose, and the second adds behavioral details. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, but it still includes useful details about what the output contains. It covers the primary behavior and fallback. Lacks mention of side effects (none) or prerequisites, but given the simplicity of a read-only lookup, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides a concrete example of model_id format, which goes beyond the schema's type definition. This helps the agent understand the expected value format. Adding further constraints like allowed characters or length could push to 5.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'specific model'. It differentiates from siblings like hf_search_models and hf_compare_models by focusing on a single model ID lookup. The additional detail about returning semantic network profile or falling back to HF API further clarifies the purpose.

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 implies when to use (get details for a specific model by ID) and provides a parameter example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among siblings, though the context of sibling tools makes the distinction reasonable. A more explicit exclusion would improve clarity.

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