inspire_h3d_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: read-only semantics are implied by 'Read', and a key scope limitation is stated (only the first subcase/step is summarized). It omits whether headless Inspire is launched on demand, license/session requirements, cost, and failure behavior for missing/invalid files.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource before the return contract; every clause (headless, per-run, min/max with positions, first subcase) earns its place. Slightly dense but not padded.

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 return value is described well, which matters since there is no output schema, and there are no annotations to lean on. However, for a 4-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, leaving 'units' and 'timeout_s' unexplained and omitting any note on prerequisites or failure modes leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 and only partly does: 'path' is implicitly the .h3d file and 'fields' is explained via the default (Displacement, von Mises Stress). 'units' (default MKS) and 'timeout_s' (default 300) are never mentioned, so half the parameters have no meaning anywhere.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Read an OptiStruct .h3d result file in headless Inspire') and states precisely what is returned (result types per run, min/max with positions). An agent can clearly tell this apart in substance from status/model-info/export siblings, though the description never names or explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent deduces this is the tool for a quick results summary versus export or model inspection, and that it requires an existing .h3d file. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as an Inspire license or session, nor when inspire_export_optistruct or inspire_model_info would be preferred.

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