avl.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds plain-language confirmation that 'original files are unchanged' and specifies what data is accessed, which reinforces the safety profile beyond the boolean hints.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource scope, then adds the key non-destructive guarantee. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong safety annotations, the description is largely adequate: it states what is read, confirms no modification, and implies the purpose. The main gap is that it does not describe what the tool returns or expand on model_path semantics, but complexity is low and annotations cover the safety context.

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 carries the burden for explaining model_path. It does not do so directly; the only hint is the property title 'Model Path'. The description never clarifies what kind of path is expected, whether local, remote, or file-format-specific.

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 opens with a specific action verb, 'Read', and names the exact resources it operates on: 'geometry, references, controls and dependencies'. This clearly distinguishes avl.inspect from execution-oriented siblings like avl.run and avl.sweep.

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 clearly establishes that this tool is for read-only inspection because it says it reads data and that 'original files are unchanged'. This gives an agent context for when to choose it over mutation or execution tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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