warm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains capacity accounting, the uncertainty of size estimates, possible outcomes (succeeded|refused|failed|unknown), retry guidance, and force behavior. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but front-loaded, opening with the core action and immediately providing practical examples. Every sentence contributes: capacity, return states, retry guidance, force limitations, and the unload alternative.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this description is remarkably complete. It covers return semantics, edge cases, force constraints, keep-alive behavior, and even directs zero-duration cases to unload().

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains keep_alive format with examples like '5m' and '-1' and gives force semantics, adding real meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'by' parameter is never described, leaving one optional parameter ambiguous.

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 clear action with resource: 'Load a model or refresh its keep-alive.' It is specific and meaningful, but it does not explicitly distinguish warm from siblings such as renew or claim, leaving some potential overlap unaddressed.

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 gives strong usage context: resident models need no capacity, keep-alive formats are explained, and 'Zero durations must use unload()' provides an explicit when-not-to-use alternative. It does not, however, compare warm with other siblings like renew or advise.

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