Inspect a 3D model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output (part names, triangle counts, thumbnail) which implies a read-only inspection. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read tool this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence clearly states what the tool does and its output. Second sentence gives usage context. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description covers output and usage context well, but fails to document the parameter (submission_id). This missing detail reduces completeness for an otherwise simple 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?

The input schema has one parameter (submission_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what submission_id is or provide any format guidance. Given that the schema itself lacks a description, the tool description should compensate but does not.

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 exactly what the tool does: shows part names, per-part triangle counts, and a rendered thumbnail. It distinguishes itself by recommending use before other tools that target specific parts (thrixel_edit_model, thrixel_retexture_model, thrixel_reduce_triangles), clearly differentiating from siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Call this before any operation that targets specific parts' and lists the sibling tools that require exact node names. It also provides a second use case: checking triangle budget before shipping. This gives clear context and exclusions.

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