pro_inspect_stl

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful context beyond that: STL carries no units so coordinates are assumed millimetres, and the tool works without a SolidWorks session. It says nothing about what the inspection returns, how failures (missing/corrupt file) surface, or size limits.

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 telegraphic sentences with zero filler and the core capability front-loaded. The fragment style is dense but slightly clipped, particularly the final caveat, which could be clearer without adding length.

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 one-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials plus the non-obvious units caveat. The remaining gaps (path format rules, error behavior) are minor for a tool this simple.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. 'Local STL' implies the path points to an on-disk STL file, which is real added meaning, but it doesn't state whether the path must be absolute, what extensions are accepted, or how relative paths resolve.

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 and resource ('Inspect local STL') and enumerates the reported quantities (bounds/topology/volume), which separates it from CAD-mutation siblings. It also carves out a distinct niche with 'No SolidWorks required,' though it never names a sibling like pro_preview_stl or get_bounding_box as the contrasting alternative.

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?

It implies usage only indirectly: 'local STL' and 'No SolidWorks required' suggest the case of a file on disk rather than an open document. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to overlapping siblings such as pro_preview_stl, pro_verify_volume, check_printability, or compare_with_mesh.

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