inspect_sewing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that the tool does not mutate the MD scene and adds a useful caveat that partial-edge/internal-shape line indices may be unresolved. It does not cover return semantics or failure modes, but the safety and data-quality caveats are valuable.

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 with no filler: the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the unresolved-indices caveat and the no-mutation guarantee. Every phrase 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it gives the operation, side-effect status, and an important data caveat. However, it does not explain how to obtain a valid group_index or what the response will contain, leaving minor but real invocation gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for group_index, so the description must compensate. It only implies that group_index selects a sewing group, without saying where the index comes from, whether it is zero-based, or what range is valid. This is minimal added meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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 the specific verb 'Read' with the clear resource 'sewing group,' and the explicit 'Does not mutate the MD scene' distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings such as create_sewing. It immediately tells an agent what operation this tool performs.

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 read/mutate contrast implies when to use this tool, but no alternative tool or explicit condition is named. An agent may infer inspection use from the verb, but there is no guidance such as 'use list_sewings to enumerate groups' or 'use create_sewing to create one.'

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