solid_inspect

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

Confirms the readOnlyHint with 'Side-effects: None' and, more valuably, discloses a real behavioral limit: face-level topology is reported as unsupported when it cannot be proven through ActiveX. That partial-failure semantics is not derivable from annotations or schema. What's missing is what happens on an invalid handle or a non-solid entity.

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 the verb and the output payload, followed by two tight labeled lines. The disambiguation line is the weakest sentence since it gestures at scope without naming a sibling, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose, and the safety profile is covered by annotations plus the side-effects line. The remaining gap is edge-case handling (invalid handle, non-solid target), which for a diagnostic inspection tool is a modest omission.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'Handle of the ACIS 3DSOLID entity to inspect'. The description only restates 'by handle' and adds the implicit constraint that the target must be an ACIS solid; no handle format or error behavior is added.

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) and resource (ACIS 3DSOLID by handle) and enumerates exactly what is returned: layer, visibility, volume, centroid, and WCS bounding box. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic readers like object_get or object_measure without opening a schema.

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 'Disambiguation: Physical and spatial verification of solids' line implies the tool's niche, but it never names an alternative (object_get, object_measure, object_query) or states when-not to use this one. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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