geometry_inspect

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 implies a read ('List') but does not confirm read-only semantics, does not state that an active session is required, and does not mention pagination, limits, or what happens if no geometry exists. Substantial behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme terseness leaves several gaps that additional sentences could have closed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits required session context, the meaning of 'dimension', and any usage routing among the many geometry/mesh siblings. For a 2-parameter, annotation-free tool this is under-specified.

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 description explains neither parameter. The 'dimension' parameter in particular is opaque (spatial dimension? entity dimension?) and gets no clarification; session_id is only inferable from its name. The description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (bounded model entities and their geometry), plus a scoping qualifier (at the current revision). It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like geometry_apply or specialized ones like geometry_structured_blocks, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus geometry_structured_blocks, geometry_pipe_oh, mesh_inspect, or the other geometry/mesh inspection siblings. The phrase 'at the current revision' hints at a state requirement but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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