entity_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that: translation entries in matrices are expressed in the requested unit. It does not cover pagination, error behavior, or what happens with invalid paths.

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 zero padding, and the returned-field list is front-loaded before the unit caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is slightly cryptic in isolation.

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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields. However, with zero parameter documentation and a non-obvious 'path' array semantics, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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% across 4 parameters. The description only explains the 'unit' parameter's effect on matrix translations, leaving 'path' (an array of entity_id refs, 1-32 items), 'model_id', and 'entity_id' entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (inspect) plus the exact data returned: persistent ID, instance path, world bounds, solid status, transform. This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like entity_transform/entity_update, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with entity_list or selection_get.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. With ~35 siblings including entity_list, selection_get and model_get_info, an agent gets no help deciding when entity_inspect is the right choice over those read tools.

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