inspect

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by enumerating the exact output payload (voxels and meters, filled extent, per-material counts, palette index, face-connected pieces), which matters because there is no output schema. It also surfaces a non-obvious domain caveat about pieces held together only by edges/corners. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line statement of purpose, followed by a compact breakdown of the returned fields. Both sentences carry information; there is no filler. Slightly long on the output enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return payload in detail, which is exactly the gap an absent output schema leaves. The one remaining gap is sibling routing against project_summary, which the description never addresses.

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 100%: the 'part' parameter is already documented as 'Only this part; default: the whole model' and 'project' is documented with an example. The description adds nothing about either parameter, including the part-scoping behavior, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does all the work.

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 name 'inspect' is ambiguous, but the description immediately resolves it: 'Describe the model in text: sizes, materials, colors and connectivity.' It spells out the returned content (voxel/meter sizes, filled extent, per-material voxel counts, face-connected pieces), so an agent knows exactly what resource is being reported. It stops short of naming how it differs from the overlapping sibling project_summary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical that edge/corner-touching voxels 'may fall apart when damaged in game' hints this is a model-integrity check before export, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. None of the plausible alternatives (project_summary, preview, slice_layers) are referenced, so the agent must infer the distinction on its own.

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