inspect_sketch_dimension

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation with no modification, and 'existing' suggests it operates on already-created dimensions, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made, what is returned, or how selection failures are handled. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and selection options, though a bit more structure or clarification of parameters would improve usefulness without harming conciseness.

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 three undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, error cases, and guidance on how the selection modes relate to the input schema. The presence of many sketch-related siblings increases the need for more context to prevent misuse.

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 description only vaguely mentions 'reference, index, or fingerprint' without mapping these concepts to the three parameters (dimension, sketch_ref, document_id). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw parameter names, and the agent is left without guidance on how to populate or combine these optional fields.

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 identifies the verb ('inspect'), the resource ('sketch dimension'), and adds selection modes ('reference, index, or fingerprint'), which separates it from generic inspection tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_sketch_dimensions or inspect_sketch_constraint, but the singular 'one existing sketch dimension' provides reasonable scoping.

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 phrase 'one existing sketch dimension' implies this is for individual inspection rather than listing, but no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The intended use case is inferable from the name and description, but the description does not clearly state when to prefer this over list_sketch_dimensions or inspect_sketch_entity.

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