inspect_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does real work: it discloses that the snapshot includes warnings about faceted curves and surface bodies, which tells the agent to expect degraded-geometry signals. It never explicitly states the operation is read-only or says anything about cost on large assemblies, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition, then a dense enumeration split cleanly by Part versus Assembly. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 the description needn't explain return values, yet the Part/Assembly enumeration is genuinely useful for tool selection across a 50+ sibling surface. What's missing is any note on scope limits (e.g., whether it works with no active document) or performance on large models.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains instance and points at list_instances. The description adds nothing about the instance argument, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('snapshot of the active document') with an explicit inventory of what is included for both Part and Assembly cases, which lets an agent tell it apart from targeted queries like find_faces or measure_distance. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this is the broad-orientation tool versus the many narrow query tools, but the description never states when to prefer it or when to reach for find_faces/get_status instead. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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