inspect_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states units, explains that unresolved refs go to `errors` without failing the call, and documents the return shape. It could do slightly more by explicitly confirming read-only behavior, but the key operational behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core action and every sentence contributes useful information: entity coverage, units, error behavior, return shape, and example. The first sentence is dense with parenthetical enumerations, but there is little wasted text.

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?

For a complex inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers entity types, units, error handling, and return structure. Minor gaps remain around full ref syntax and the exact semantics of `detail`, but the essential call context is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining accepted ref formats such as `origin:XY` and that `detail` controls whether geometry is included. It stops short of fully documenting all possible ref syntaxes, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: describe entities by ref, with a detailed enumeration of entity types and attributes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as inspect_query, inspect_tree, or inspect_physical_properties, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through examples of refs like `origin:XY` and the `detail` option, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no named alternatives among the many inspect/measure siblings. An agent can infer that it describes referenced entities, but the description does not route it against competing tools.

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