neurover_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description earns credit for disclosing the returned fields (id, name, prompt character limit) and the per-model limit semantics with concrete examples (30000 vs 5000), which materially affects how an agent writes prompts. Auth requirements and any filtering behavior remain unspecified.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the step marker and the returned fields, with the limit constraint placed where it matters most. The parenthetical model examples are dense but useful rather than filler.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond safety, the description adequately explains what comes back and why the character limits matter. It is not complete on the input side: a required workflowId and an enum parameter are left entirely unexplained.

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 carries the full burden, yet it never mentions workflowId (required), type (an enum of image/video/audio/text), or account. The enum values map plausibly to what the tool returns, but the agent gets no guidance on what workflowId must be or how account changes results.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: it lists canvas models and states what each record contains (id, name, prompt character limit). "ШАГ 0" also situates the tool as the first step before prompt writing. It does not differentiate against the nearest sibling, neurover_model_settings, so it falls 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?

The "ШАГ 0" prefix implies this should be called first, before composing a prompt, which is usable guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to use instead for model configuration, so usage must be inferred.

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