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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the response is a summary, not the raw voxel array — but says nothing about error cases, handle invalidation, or size limits.

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, no filler, and the scope-defining clause about the voxel array is front-loaded where it matters most. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the read-only nature is fully covered by annotations. Only the origin/format of the model handle is left unspecified, a minor gap for a one-parameter tool.

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 carry the load for the single 'model' parameter. It partially does by calling it a 'VoxelDraft model handle', hinting at the expected token type, but gives no format, origin (e.g., from create_voxel_model or load_voxel_project), or validity rules.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a VoxelDraft model handle') and enumerates exactly what it returns: voxel count, command count, bounds, and colors. The closing clause 'without dumping the full voxel array' separates it from data-heavy siblings like render_voxel_model and export_voxel_model.

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 phrase 'without dumping the full voxel array' implies this is the lightweight summarization path, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings such as render_voxel_model, export_voxel_model, or edit_voxel_model. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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