Inspect Model

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

The annotations already declare open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds key context: it creates a snapshot and returned entity tags are scoped to the inspection, with labels explicitly described as hints rather than authoritative assignments. It still does not explain snapshot persistence, lifetime, or cleanup semantics.

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 three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence carries useful information, though the wording around labels and revisioned artifacts is dense and could be slightly clearer.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool safely. However, it does not explain when this tool should be chosen over query_model or validate_study, and it leaves the snapshot's side effects and lifecycle ambiguous.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the uri/source choice and the revision-bound artifact structure. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity of the two inputs, but adds little beyond the schema and may slightly narrow the source to STEP even though the schema's format enum includes non-STEP formats.

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 verb and resource: snapshot a local STEP file and inspect SI-normalized geometry. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools such as query_model or validate_study.

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?

It says to supply exactly one URI or revisioned STEP artifact, which is an input constraint rather than usage guidance. It gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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