inspect_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Inspect' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether the operation is non-destructive, what it returns, whether it can fail (e.g., if the feature is not found), or any side effects. For a read tool, the lack of return-format or error behavior disclosure is a notable 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it lists the selection methods compactly. No wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague input schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'inspect' returns, how the selection methods are expressed in the 'feature' parameter, or what document_id is for. An agent would likely need to open the schema (which is unhelpful) or guess. The sibling list shows related inspection tools, but the description does not position itself among them.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the schema itself is weak: 'feature' is an untyped object with additionalProperties true, and 'document_id' is a nullable string. The description mentions selection by reference, index, fingerprint, or name, which maps to the 'feature' parameter, but it does not explain how these selectors are structured or how document_id relates to them. The description adds some meaning but does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('one existing 3D feature'), and lists four selection methods (reference, index, fingerprint, name). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_features or inspect_sketch_entity. The phrase '3D feature' helps differentiate from sketch entities, but the description could be more explicit about how it differs from list_features.

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 usage: call this when you need to inspect an existing 3D feature, selected by one of four identifiers. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., list_features for enumerating features, inspect_sketch_entity for sketch entities). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but explicit routing guidance is missing.

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