inspect_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and meets it: it explicitly says the tool only reads the file, requires no solver, consumes no licence token, and reports dangling references in addition to defined content. This gives an agent a strong safety/behavior profile.

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?

Every sentence adds information: summary, detailed contents, safety behavior, and parameter semantics. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and stays compact despite the tool's complexity.

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 inspection tool, the description covers purpose, input semantics, behavioral constraints, and scope of report. An output schema exists, so not detailing the return structure is acceptable.

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?

The schema provides only a bare string property, so the description's Args section is essential and sufficient: 'Path to the .inp deck, or a job name under the runs directory.' It fully defines the single parameter's accepted forms.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Summarise what is actually in an Abaqus input deck.' It then enumerates the exact content categories (mesh, materials, sections, sets, steps, loads, BCs, dangling references), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_validity or read_job_file.

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 makes the intended use clear: inspect a deck's real contents without running it. The phrase 'Reads the file only: no solver, no licence token' tells an agent when this tool is appropriate versus simulation tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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