Inspect Model Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: unit labelling on every result, bounding boxes being conservative envelopes rather than tight fits, and volume returning null when there is no solid material. It does not mention failure modes for unreadable or missing paths, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Five sentences, none wasted, with the primary action and ordering constraint front-loaded before the caveats about units, bounding boxes, and null volume. Each sentence conveys a distinct fact an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers the non-obvious cases that output schemas typically do not convey: which unit lengths use, that bounding boxes are conservative, and when volume is null. Complete for a two-parameter read-only 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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the enumeration of size/counts/health. The description's 'use include to request only size, counts, and/or health sections' restates the schema rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 specific verb and resource ('Inspect a local STEP artifact') plus the accepted input forms (filesystem path or file: URI). It also names what is returned (content revision, dimensions, counts, B-rep validity), so an agent can distinguish it from find_entities or measure without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly sequences the tool ('Call this first') and routes follow-up work to siblings by saying to use the returned artifact reference 'for entity searches and measurements.' That is a clear when-to-use signal tied to concrete alternatives rather than an inference.

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