inspect_model

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only hints that the output is a Geometry Graph. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it creates artifacts, what prerequisites exist, or what happens for unsupported models.

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 very brief and contains no filler, which is good, but the awkward phrase 'one confined supported' wastes clarity without adding useful information. It is concise but not cleanly structured.

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 output schema covers the return value, but the description still lacks essential context about supported input formats, side effects, and how this tool relates to siblings like doctor or resolve_regions. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke it.

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 should compensate for explaining model_path, but it does not. It never mentions accepted file formats, path forms, or how the CAD model should be referenced, leaving the parameter's semantics mostly to inference.

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 states a specific action ('Inspect') and resource ('CAD model') and names the expected output ('Geometry Graph'), which differentiates it from run- and region-focused siblings. However, the phrase 'one confined supported CAD model' is awkward and 'confined supported' is not defined, reducing clarity.

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 the tool is used when a CAD model needs to be converted into a Geometry Graph, providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like doctor or resolve_regions.

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