model_advise

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: the output 'Cannot alter decisions' (advisory only, non-binding) and that a deterministic fallback exists when the tool is disabled, which tells the agent how to interpret results and handle unavailability.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the advisory/non-binding constraint is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how advice is produced or returned, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. It omits what the query/project inputs mean and what the agent receives back, leaving real gaps.

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% for two required parameters (project, query), and the description says nothing about what either represents, their format, or the query length limit. The description does not compensate for the complete absence of parameter documentation in the 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?

The name plus phrases like 'local specialist' only vaguely imply that this consults a local model for advisory input; the description never states a verb+resource such as 'get non-binding advice from a local model'. 'Optional local specialist' leaves the actual action and domain unclear, though an agent can roughly infer it is an advisor tool.

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?

'Optional' and 'deterministic fallback when disabled' imply the tool is supplementary and safe to skip, giving some usage context. However, it never states clearly when to use it versus not, nor names any alternative, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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