inspect_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' clearly implies a read-only inspection operation, and the output categories are specified. However, it does not disclose details such as mass-property units, behavior on invalid shapes, whether doc_name is required for objects outside the active document, or error conditions.

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 terse sentence with the verb front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning by listing specific output categories, and there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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, has an output schema, and the description lists what will be returned, so it is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context and leaves both parameters semantically undocumented, making the overall definition incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explain that object_name refers to a shape-bearing object or that doc_name scopes the lookup to a specific document. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional semantic value is added.

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 ('Return') and resource ('shape') and enumerates the exact output categories: shape type, validity, topology counts, mass properties, and bounds. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like inspect_object or get_bounding_box, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_object, get_bounding_box, or check_geometry. The agent receives no context about which situations call for this tool, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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