inspect_data

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small amount of context about the purpose (inspecting a mesh before attribute selection) but does not describe return behavior, side effects, or any caveats. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to read. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, the description lacks critical details such as what 'source' should be, what the inspection returns, and when to use it compared to siblings. The missing parameter semantics and usage guidance make it incomplete for an agent to confidently call 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 input schema has a single required parameter 'source' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'source' refers to (e.g., whether it is the mesh identifier or a path). Since the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, this dimension is weak.

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 a clear action ('Inspect') on a specific resource ('workspace mesh') and adds a purpose ('before selecting attributes'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, but it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_schema or observe_spec, which might also inspect data.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'before selecting attributes' as a context, but does not explain when not to use it or point to any sibling tool that might be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are listed.

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