inspect_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses an important limitation: session entities are only those created by typed tools, not the full feature tree, and it details the exact return format. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core return information, and every sentence contributes value. It packs the essential output format, scope limitation, and alternative usage into just three short sentences without redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description usefully provides the exact return tuple, entity IDs, and COM handles. It also covers the critical scope limitation and directs to api_invoke for existing topology. However, it does not clarify how document_id relates to the model or what 'typed tools' means, leaving minor gaps.

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 single parameter document_id is not explained in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema only provides the title 'Document Id', so the description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter name. For low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('bounding box, entity IDs and COM handles'). It also distinguishes itself from the alternative api_invoke by clarifying the scope of session entities versus existing model topology, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: for session entities created by typed tools, not the full feature tree. It then directs the agent to use the part's EntityCollection through api_invoke for existing model topology, providing a clear alternative.

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