session_inspect_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; the word 'Inspect' implies a non-mutating read and the returned fields are listed. However, it says nothing about side effects, permission requirements, or failure behavior (e.g. unknown element_id), and the return-field list largely duplicates the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then the returned data, with no filler. The parenthetical example is compact and earns its place, though the enumerated return fields are somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and the read-only nature is inferable from 'Inspect'. The gaps that matter are the unexplained `model_part` parameter and the absence of any error/not-found guidance for a targeted lookup by element_id.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies one of four parameters: `variables`, illustrated with concrete names like 'VON_MISES_STRESS' and framed as integration-point values. `session_id`, `element_id`, and especially `model_part` remain entirely unexplained.

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 concrete verb ('Inspect') and a precise resource ('one element') and enumerates what is returned (node ids, properties id, active flag, integration-point values). It is implicitly distinguished from session_inspect_node by the object being an element, but it never names the sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus session_inspect_node, session_field_summary, or session_model_info, and no prerequisites such as requiring an active session. Usage can only be inferred from the verb 'Inspect'.

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