inspect_case

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool is local-only, reads specific solver file formats, and checks named pre-flight criteria. This gives the agent a concrete behavioral model of a side-effect-free local inspection operation.

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 first sentence states the core purpose, and the following clauses add distinct details about supported formats, checks performed, and the no-API-calls constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and the actionable 'Fix error items before uploading' hint is useful without being verbose.

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 one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it reads, and how it fits into the pre-upload workflow. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the exact structure of the returned inspection results, but an agent still has enough to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, folder, has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating that the parameter should refer to a 'local case folder' and enumerates the file formats and structures inspected. It does not specify path format or existence requirements, but for a single self-describing parameter this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and object ('a local case folder') and names two concrete goals: detecting the solver/model size and running pre-flight checks. It clearly distinguishes this local pre-upload inspection tool from sibling cloud operations like upload_folder or launch_simulation.

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 says this works on a local case folder, makes no API calls, and instructs the agent to fix 'error' items before uploading, which establishes a clear workflow context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when not to use it, but the 'before uploading' and 'Makes no API calls' signals provide strong guidance.

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