get_model

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 states the tool retrieves 'details and fields,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first ('Get details and fields for a specific model.') followed by a brief parameter explanation. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter meaning, but could improve by adding usage context or behavioral details to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'id' is 'The model ID,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic value. The schema already defines 'id' as a required string, so the description compensates slightly but not richly.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details and fields for a specific model.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('model'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_models' by focusing on a single model. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get_' siblings (e.g., 'get_connection'), which slightly limits differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'get_model' over 'list_models' for retrieving model information, nor does it reference other sibling tools like 'create_model' or 'update_model' for context. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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