inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important side effect—that the tool creates 'an open locked quote' and an upload_id—which goes beyond a simple read. However, it does not explain the lifecycle of the lock, expiration, whether the quote becomes stale, or what happens if the file is invalid. This partial transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the side effects are presented in a compact follow-up. Every word adds value.

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 tool with a single well-documented parameter, the description is mostly sufficient, but it lacks integration context: it does not explain how the created upload_id and locked quote should be used with sibling tools (e.g., start or quote), nor does it describe the response structure. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more workflow context would make this fully complete.

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 description for file_path ('Absolute path to a local .blend file') covers 100% of the parameter semantic meaning. The tool description only indirectly references the parameter ('Inspect a Blender .blend') and adds no extra information such as file size limits, format expectations, or path rules. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action—'Inspect a Blender .blend'—and specifies the key benefit: 'without spending.' It also names the concrete outputs: 'Creates upload_id and an open locked quote.' This clearly describes what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like quote/start by emphasizing no cost.

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 phrase 'without spending' implies a pre-payment inspection step, and the sibling names (quote, start, status, download, receipt) suggest a workflow. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion guidance. The usage context is only implied, not directly clarified.

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