fusion_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read' which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., no active document), response format, or performance characteristics. Key behavioral context is missing.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence accurately summarizes the tool's purpose. Every phrase adds value—no fluff, no redundancy. The most important action ('Read') is front-loaded.

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 simple zero-parameter inspection tool, the description covers the core scope but omits important context such as output format, prerequisites (active document existence), and potential failure modes. Given the large sibling set with overlapping functions, some usage guidance would improve completeness, though it remains minimally adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description adds context about what data is read, which aligns with the schema's emptiness. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description adds no contradictory information.

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 clearly states a read operation on the active document, enumerating specific data groups (identity, design counts, parameters, feature health, CAM counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like fusion_cam_inventory and fusion_model_overview by the breadth of data listed, but does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fusion_model_overview or fusion_cam_inventory. The description merely implies general inspection but does not state conditions, exclusions, or how it compares to sibling tools.

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