render.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small amount of extra context: 'Risk: read', 'maturity: L3', and the statement that argument checks and session policy apply. This is useful but thin, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices substance: it is closer to under-specification than to efficient completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safe annotations, the description is incomplete for an inspect tool in a large sibling set. It does not say what aspect of rendering is inspected, what state it reads, or how it relates to render configuration tools, leaving an agent to guess from the title alone.

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 adds no meaning to any parameter, and the schema leaves _expectedSceneRevision without a description. With 75% schema coverage, the schema handles most parameters, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented one or explain the internal harness parameters in practical terms.

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 tool name as a command ('PartMe Blender Harness command `render.inspect`') without stating what it inspects or what action it performs. 'Risk: read' hints at read-only behavior but does not clarify the resource or purpose, and it does not distinguish this tool from many render-related siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_render_configure. It only states generic requirements ('Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply'), which does not help an agent choose between related tools.

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