Describe AgentFEM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the 'Inspect' language aligns with those. The description adds value by scoping behavior to the installed runtime and approved roots and by flagging that 'full' should be reserved for advanced-capability selection, which is useful beyond 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first gives the scope, the second gives an actionable usage rule. It is front-loaded and does not repeat annotations or schema 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?

With a simple single-parameter schema, an output schema present, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The optional 'full' usage is covered, and return-value details are presumably handled by the output schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'detail' parameter, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It directly references the enum values 'summary' and 'full' and provides a decision rule for choosing between them. It does not define what each detail level returns, but it adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw enum.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and a concrete resource ('installed AgentFEM runtime and approved roots'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_project. It is not a tautology and gives an agent enough specificity to know what the tool operates on.

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 explicit invocation guidance: 'Use summary first; request full only when selecting an advanced capability.' This provides clear context for how to use the tool, including the default behavior emphasis, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling alternatives.

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