inspect_keyword_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses two traits — no solver invocation and no INCLUDE expansion (so the inventory may be partial) — but omits whether the operation is read-only and says nothing about the shape of what comes back.

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 with no filler; the qualifier is placed immediately after the purpose so it is read as a scope bound rather than padding.

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 an undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least explain the argument and the return shape; it leaves both to the caller's inference.

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?

One parameter ("model") with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it — no indication of whether it is a file path, model name, or PyDYNA handle.

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?

"Inventory a deck using PyDYNA" gives a clear verb (inventory) plus resource (deck), and the qualifier separates it from solver-running or include-resolving siblings such as run_on_version or inspect_model.

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 "no solver or include expansion is performed" clause implies a scope boundary, but it never names an alternative tool or states a when-to-use condition beyond that negative constraint.

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