get_feature_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read-only operation that reads every feature and returns specific details. It mentions handling of unknowns ('through=None') and occluded cuts, and explicitly states 'Read-only.' There are no contradictions.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections: overall purpose, feature details, bore info, and usage advice. Every sentence adds necessary information, though some redundancy could be trimmed. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a thorough explanation of all returned data: per-feature fields, per-cut details, source of values, handling of unknowns and occluded cuts, and the bore inventory. This ensures the AI agent understands exactly what to expect.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds value by explaining the output structure, which is helpful for understanding what the tool returns.

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 description clearly states that the tool provides a complete inventory of every feature in the tree with detailed per-feature and per-cut information, plus a geometry-based bore inventory. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'describe_feature' and 'list_faces' by offering a comprehensive overview suitable for before-modification verification.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'USE BEFORE modifying any multi-feature part: enumerate every cut, change one, re-call, then confirm feature_count + the OTHER features are unchanged.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and the intended workflow. The description also notes that occluded cuts require a different tool ('capture_views'), providing when-not-to-use context.

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