get_model

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the response aggregates the model detail plus attached issues and code locations, which is meaningful return-shape information with no output schema present, but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or whether the attached data is truncated.

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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted, though there is little structure to speak of given the length.

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-parameter read tool the description covers the essential 'what you get back', which helps since there is no output schema or annotation coverage. It falls short on how to supply asset_id and on any behavioral caveats, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 0% and the description never mentions asset_id. The name alone implies an identifier, but it is unclear whether this is a model ID, a repository asset, or something else, and no format or sourcing hint is given.

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+resource ('Get a model's detail') and adds the scope of attached data (issues and code locations), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_models. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of list_models or any alternative. The agent must infer that this is the single-model counterpart to list_models purely from the names.

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