Inspect a downloaded 3D asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds valuable context: 'FREE and fully local: no network call, no credits' and lists what it reports, including warnings for downstream problems. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the key benefit ('FREE and fully local'), then the purpose, then how to call it. The list of properties is somewhat lengthy but necessary to convey the output. It is efficient without being terse.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates what is reported (counts, materials, etc.) and mentions warnings, covering the return content. It also explains both parameters' usage. It does not detail error behavior beyond the schema's note on non-glTF formats, but that is sufficient for a read-only inspection tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying the relationship: assetJobId is for a downloaded job and modelPath for any local file. This clarifies the distinction beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 ('inspect') and resource ('downloaded glTF/GLB' or local file), and enumerates the technical properties it reports (mesh/triangle counts, materials, texture resolutions, bounding box, presence of UVs/normals/tangents/PBR channels). It also notes warnings for downstream issues, making the purpose concrete and distinct from siblings like get_asset_job or validate_game_asset.

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?

It provides clear usage context for both parameters: 'Pass assetJobId to inspect a downloaded job, or modelPath to inspect any local file.' This tells the agent when each input is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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