inspect_freecad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it explains that the two call modes (doc_name+obj_name vs dotted_name) return different kinds of information. It does not cover failure modes (invalid names, missing objects), which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the routing constraint is front-loaded before the parameter explanation. Each 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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, routing, and per-parameter behavior adequately. The only missing piece is behavior when all three optional parameters are omitted.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden — and it does, mapping doc_name+obj_name to object introspection (TypeId, settable properties, methods, docstring) and dotted_name to a docstring/member list, with a concrete example ('Part.makeLoft'). It does not state what happens if no arguments are supplied, leaving one gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('Inspect the live FreeCAD Python API') and immediately positions the tool against a named sibling ('recall_patterns'), so an agent can tell it apart from get_objects, operation_help, or diagnose without opening schemas.

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?

It states an explicit selection condition — 'the last resort when your own knowledge and recall_patterns are insufficient' — naming both the prerequisite (exhausted knowledge) and the alternative (recall_patterns). This is the kind of routing guidance that prevents premature introspection calls.

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