inspect_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool returns metadata, but does not disclose side effects (likely read-only), performance implications, or error handling. The list of returned data provides some transparency, but additional info like file size limits or loading behavior would improve it.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides additional context and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has one parameter fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description provides enough context for initial understanding: lists returned data, gives usage order, and implies read-only nature. No significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds context that the file is a simulation file and lists what the tool returns, but does not add new meaning to the file_path parameter beyond the schema's description.

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 inspects a simulation file and returns metadata, listing specific elements like bounds, arrays, timestep info, and multiblock structure. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it should be used first before rendering or extracting.

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 provides explicit guidance to use this tool first to understand available data before rendering or extracting. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the context is clear. No direct alternatives are named, but the intended use case is well-defined.

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