Inspect a shape

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

The description says 'Read' and 'Inspect', making the read-only nature clear, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces this. It also explains the shape_data key format in relation to visio_set_shape_data, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 compact and well-organized, with a brief purpose statement followed by an Args section. No unnecessary wording or redundancy is present.

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 description provides enough context to understand what data is fetched, how shape_data keys relate to another tool, and how to use defaults for page and document. Given the output schema is noted as existing, the description adequately covers the tool's scope.

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?

All three parameters are described with concrete types and defaults: shape_id comes from visio_list_shapes, while page and document support name or 1-based index and explain omission behavior. This fully covers the input schema despite the schema itself lacking descriptions.

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 reads everything about one shape, including text, geometry, Shape Data, layers, and links. The title 'Inspect a shape' reinforces a read-only purpose without ambiguity.

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 implies use when needing full shape details, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like visio_list_shapes or visio_search_text. The note about visio_set_shape_data expectations hints at a follow-up workflow but stops short of explicit usage guidance.

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