mdpa_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly with 'Inspect' and lists the output details, but does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior. 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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the delivered information compactly. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and the description lists all key outputs. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed further. It is complete for practical use, though it could mention error handling or file access requirements, but those are not essential given the schema.

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?

The schema has only one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by stating it inspects a '.mdpa mesh file', making clear that 'path' refers to the mesh file location. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and is sufficient for a single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'Kratos .mdpa mesh file'. It enumerates exactly what information is provided (node/element/condition counts, bounding box, property ids, SubModelPart tree), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mdpa_validate or mdpa_get_nodes.

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 through the verb 'Inspect' and the listed outputs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mdpa_validate or mdpa_get_nodes. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative guidance, so it relies on the user inferring the tool's role.

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