inspect_freecad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the two operating modes, the type of returned data (JSON with properties/members/docstring), and that output is 'compact, capped'. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or has no side effects, though 'runtime introspection' implies non-mutating behavior.

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 well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then details modes and return format. It is concise, with no filler or redundancy; every sentence adds essential information.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity: it covers purpose, usage modes, parameter semantics, and return format. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured. The note about 'compact, capped' output adds valuable context. No significant gaps remain.

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% and the schema provides no descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining how each parameter is used: 'pass doc_name + obj_name' for object mode and 'pass dotted_name' for API mode. This gives clear semantics for all three optional parameters.

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 the tool performs 'Runtime introspection of the FreeCAD Python API' with specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a 'last-resort reference' when knowledge and recall_patterns are insufficient, and by describing two concrete modes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('last-resort reference when both your knowledge and recall_patterns are insufficient') and names an alternative (recall_patterns). The two modes further define how to invoke it, giving clear context for usage.

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