inspect_design

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about permissions, whether analysis is computed on demand or cached, failure modes for invalid design_ids, or whether results are paginated — an output schema exists, so return shape is covered, but the behavioral profile is not.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the returned artifacts. It is efficient, though it spends its only words enumerating outputs rather than clarifying the action.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition is minimally viable: the agent knows it needs a design_id and roughly what comes back. The missing pieces are the undocumented parameter and absent read-only/behavioral confirmation, which matter more here because there are no annotations to fall back on.

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 0% and the single parameter design_id is a bare string with no description in the schema. The description does not mention design_id at all, so the agent gets no help on what identifier format is expected or that the design must already exist.

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 names the resources returned (analytic dimensions, collision report, bill of materials) but the verb is a generic 'Get' and the target object is never stated — only the parameter name implies it inspects a design. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like render_preview or export_cad, which also presumably operate on a design.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the other design-related siblings, no prerequisites (e.g. must the design be fully modeled or synced first), and no indication of cost or latency. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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