inspect_netcdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool inspects the file and returns a summary, which is a read-only action. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid filepath, unsupported format) or any side effects, though for a simple inspection tool this is somewhat acceptable.

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, focused sentence that directly states the action and expected output. No filler or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and result. The only minor gap is lack of explicit usage context relative to sibling tools, but that is not critical for a straightforward inspection tool.

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 100% with the single 'filepath' parameter adequately described as 'The absolute path to the .nc file to inspect.' The description does not add additional parameter detail, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspects') with a clear resource ('a NetCDF file') and states the expected output ('summary of its contents (dimensions, variables, coordinates)'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like fetch_era5_* and extract_point_timeseries, which are data retrieval/extraction tools rather than file inspection.

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 this tool is used to preview or summarize a NetCDF file, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling fetch/extract tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the usage context is only implicitly clear.

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