inspect_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' and 'public properties' imply a read-only inspection, but it never explicitly states that it does not modify the model, nor does it explain truncation via max_items or any permissions/rate-limit behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a compact args list, front-loads the purpose, then usage, then parameter hints. No sentence 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the path examples are helpful. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, the missing semantics for analysis_index/max_items and the lack of an explicit read-only statement leave gaps for navigating multiple analyses or truncated results.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does a good job on path with examples like '' and 'Children[0]', but it merely names analysis_index and max_items without explaining indexing or result limiting.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('public properties of an object in the LS-DYNA analysis tree'), so the agent knows exactly what will be returned. The second sentence positions it as a discovery step before set_analysis_settings, distinguishing it from mutation tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to discover real property names before calling set_analysis_settings, giving a clear usage context and alternative. It does not state when not to use it or contrast with get_analysis_settings, so it is not a full 5.

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