model_inspect

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral details: file types, local processing, and volume reporting conditions (watertight for mesh). No contradictions, and disclosures go beyond 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?

Description is a single paragraph with three sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently covers supported formats, computed properties, and privacy.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple formats, optional density, per-solid data) and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns and under what conditions, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description fully compensates by explaining that 'density_g_cm3' is for mass calculation and 'path' is for the model file. It adds semantic value 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?

Description clearly states the tool summarizes a CAD model with specific outputs (bounding box, volume, etc.) and lists supported file formats. It contrasts with sibling tools like model_validate and model_build, making its purpose 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 implies usage for inspection without explicit when-to-use vs siblings, but it provides context such as 'Reads the file on this machine; nothing leaves it,' which guides on privacy. A more explicit comparison would improve clarity.

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