Inspect a 3D model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false, so the 'Read-only' line is redundant, but the description adds real behavioral detail: what `detail` changes at output level (first 40 nodes vs every node, plus materials and textures) and what estimates are produced. It doesn't describe pagination or output shape, which is a minor 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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it returns, then the detail modes, then use cases, then alternatives. Slight redundancy with 'Read-only' repeating the annotation and a run-on inventory sentence, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming every reported field and how detail level affects them. For a 2-parameter read-only inspection tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 enum is already documented, but the description adds concrete meaning beyond it — the 40-node cap for `brief` and the fact that `full` also emits materials and textures. The default (full) is only in the schema, so it's slightly short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show what is in a .glb or .gltf') and enumerates the exact outputs: file size, triangles, nodes, materials, textures with memory estimate, bounds in metres, lowest point, and per-mesh node tree. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like godot_model_view or godot_model_lint.

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?

Gives concrete triggering scenarios ('check a triangle budget or why a model floats') and explicitly routes to alternatives: godot_model_view for shape, godot_model_lint for problems. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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