inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context beyond the purpose, but it does specify the PLAXIS domain, which is useful. No additional behavioral details (e.g., output behavior, error handling) are disclosed, but the bar is lower given the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without redundancy. It wastes no words and is appropriately concise for a simple 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It provides the core purpose but omits details about path semantics and what 'inspect' returns (though the output schema covers return values). Given the simplicity and strong annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in parameter 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?

The schema has one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the format or expected values of 'path', only that the tool inspects a PLAXIS object or property, which implicitly suggests the path targets one. This is minimal compensation, relying heavily on the parameter name and leaving semantics incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool inspects a PLAXIS object or property, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_objects (which lists all objects) and set_property (which modifies), as it targets a single object or property for examination.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_objects or model_state. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context, which falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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