vrm_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies that the tool performs inspection (implying read-only), outputs structured JSON, and does not render anything (no rendering). This adequately communicates non-destructive behavior and output format for a simple inspection tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently enumerates the inspection contents and output format. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description provides a complete overview of what is inspected, the input type, the output format, and the non-rendering behavior. This is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional details.

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 input schema has one parameter 'path' fully described as 'Local path to a .vrm file' (coverage 100%). The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter itself, but the schema already covers it. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: inspect a local VRM file, and lists specific content areas (meta, humanoid bone map, expressions, statistics). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly targeting VRM files (not VRMA) and the 'inspect' operation versus validate/preview/snapshot, making its scope unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect a local VRM file and receive structured metadata and statistics. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like vrm_validate, but the sibling tool names and the description's focus on inspection imply the appropriate usage.

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