form_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it says the operation changes nothing, specifies millimeters, and describes the return shape including truncation flags. It does not cover permissions or error cases, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core read-only purpose, then gives the exact semantic purpose of the positions, then the return shape. It is appropriately sized with no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return shape itself. Combined with the fully described input schema and explicit non-mutating/unit behavior, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `body`, `limit`, and `include`. The description adds geometric meaning to vertex, edge, and face positions but does not add parameter-specific usage details 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the control mesh of a T-spline body, with units and non-mutating behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from form_list and the form_* mutators that consume the returned positions.

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?

Makes the context clear by explaining that returned positions are what form_move, form_crease, and form_insert_edge match their `near` points to. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a direct alternative, but the intended inspection-before-editing use is clear.

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