neurover_model_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that the number of results and which fields are disabled are decided by the site — but says nothing about what the response looks like or how the model is identified.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'step 0' cue and dense with concrete field examples (images, reference_videos, cref, sref) instead of filler. No redundancy, though the second sentence is long and could be split.

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 readOnly annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description should at least indicate that the return value is a per-model settings specification and identify how the model is selected. It does the former implicitly and omits the latter, so an agent still has to guess which of model/modelId/workflowId to pass.

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 mentions none of the five parameters (type, model, account, modelId, workflowId), including the required workflowId. The only parameter-adjacent content concerns reference fields returned in the schema, not the inputs the agent must supply.

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 concretely that this returns the settings schema of a single model (mode, duration, resolution, aspect_ratio, reference fields) and labels it 'ШАГ 0', which separates it from list-style siblings like neurover_models. The verb is implicit ('return/show schema') rather than explicit, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives ordering guidance (step 0, i.e. call this before configuring a model) and an explicit 'do not' rule: file_array fields must be supplied via references with the matching field, not via settings. It does not name alternatives such as neurover_models or neurover_api_catalog, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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