geometry_nodes.inspect

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

The description adds 'Risk: read' and 'maturity: L3', but 'risk: read' merely echoes the readOnlyHint annotation, and maturity is not a behavioral trait. It does not disclose what the tool does, what side effects occur, or what output to expect. It does not contradict annotations, but adds little beyond them.

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 short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than conciseness. It includes redundant command-name mention and generic policy notes, which are not useful. It is not front-loaded with actionable information.

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 tool that inspects something, the description fails to state what is inspected, what inputs are needed, or what the output represents. Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves the agent without enough context to understand the tool's purpose or proper invocation.

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 description makes no reference to any parameters. With schema description coverage at 60%, the groupName parameter lacks a description, and the description does not compensate for this gap or add any semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 merely restates the command name 'geometry_nodes.inspect' without stating what it does. It provides no verb+resource, no mention of inspecting geometry node groups, and does not distinguish it from any of the many other 'inspect' sibling tools. This is a tautology.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions session policy requirements, which are generic and not about tool selection. There is no context about use cases or exclusions.

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