inspect_part

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

Despite readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds significant behavioral detail: exact feature matching (unexpected or ambiguous groups fail), unsupported expectation keys rejected, no built-in fixture expectations, and heuristic warnings for shallow cuts/constant sections. This goes far beyond the annotation and clarifies failure modes.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the main output, then explains optional parameter behavior, exact matching semantics, return modes, and constraints. Each sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and output schema, the description covers return modes, error conditions, and heuristic warnings comprehensively. However, it omits context on object_name and sectioning parameters, and doesn't discuss relationship to other inspection tools. Still, the core behavior is fully specified.

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%, so description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'expected' parameter with supported keys and matching behavior, but says nothing about object_name, section_axis, or section_slices, leaving those under-characterized. Partial compensation only.

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+resource: 'Return one compact generation-checkpoint inventory' and enumerates exact contents (bbox, solid/topology counts, holes, bosses, patterns, cross-section area profile). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling find_* tools which are single-feature, while inspect_part provides a consolidated inventory.

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 provides clear conditional context (with/without expectations) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_holes or analyze_printability. It implies a checkpoint/inventory use case but lacks direct comparison or exclusion guidance.

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