inspect_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it specifies the return shape, the `item_count`/`truncated` flags, the `features: []` edge case for direct designs, and the origin-plane addressing convention. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or any permission requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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-loaded with purpose, then return contract, then an example call. The origin-plane enumeration is somewhat dense but earns its place as a lookup. Overall tight and well-ordered, with minimal waste.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description spells out the return structure, edge cases (direct designs, origin addressing), and truncation handling. For a 4-parameter, entirely-optional-parameter inspection tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameter types are documented, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that origin planes/axes/point are addressed via `origin:*` and are not listed, that `ref` is stable, and that `component`/`depth`/`include` should be narrowed when `truncated` is true. This is above the baseline-3 schema-dependent case.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Model tree of the active design') and enumerates exactly what it returns (bodies, sketches, construction geometry, timeline features with health, nested occurrences). It also marks itself as the entry point ('Start here to find what to work on'), which cleanly differentiates it from siblings like timeline_list or sketch_list.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the starting point ('Start here to find what to work on') and gives concrete guidance on what to do when output is truncated ('narrow component/depth/include'). It stops short of naming specific alternative tools and the conditions under which inspect_describe or inspect_bounding_box would be preferred.

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