openvsp.inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool reads metadata and does not require OpenVSP, which implies a non-mutating, lightweight operation. However, it does not disclose what the output contains, whether it validates the file, or what happens with malformed or missing files. For a read-only inspection tool, the description is adequate but thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: 'Read' states the action, 'XML geometry metadata' states the resource, and 'without OpenVSP' states the key differentiator. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, an output schema, and no annotations. The description is enough to understand the basic operation, but it does not explain what the returned metadata looks like, whether the output schema fully describes the return value, or how this inspection relates to the other openvsp tools. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 must compensate. The description mentions 'XML geometry metadata' and the schema names the parameter 'geometry_file' with a description 'Path to the .vsp3 file', so the parameter's purpose is inferable. The tool description adds the context that the file is XML and that OpenVSP is not needed, but it does not explain the expected format, extension, or how the path is resolved. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter, and the description adds only marginal context.

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 ('Read') and resource ('XML geometry metadata') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('without OpenVSP'), which distinguishes it from tools that require or launch OpenVSP. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the qualifier plus the tool name 'inspect' make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 implies usage: use this tool to read geometry metadata without needing OpenVSP. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like openvsp.preview, openvsp.query, or openvsp.read_results, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'without OpenVSP' phrase gives some context but not enough to fully route an agent among the many sibling tools.

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