inspire_model_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the safety profile: it explicitly says the file is opened read-only and is not saved or modified, and it discloses that the tool runs headless Inspire. It also explains the bounding_box convention. It does not mention that launching Inspire is expensive/slow, nor what happens on timeout or an unopenable file, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and safety guarantee, followed by a short units note. Every clause carries information (output fields, bounding_box definition, non-destructive guarantee). Slightly over-packed, but no filler.

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, so the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating the summary sections and the bounding_box convention. What is missing is operational context around the 300s timeout and the cost of spinning up headless Inspire, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call this repeatedly.

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 for all three parameters. It only clarifies one: 'units: e.g. MKS, MMKS' gives usable values for the units parameter. The path parameter is self-evident, but timeout_s (default 300s) is never explained, leaving the agent to guess at runtime expectations and timeout behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (open read-only, summarize) and resource (an Inspire model file, with example extensions), then enumerates exactly what is summarized: parts with dimensions/mass/volume/material/sheet thickness, load cases, loads, and contacts. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inspire_h3d_summary or inspire_export_optistruct, which handle different formats/tasks.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting a model before doing anything else, and the read-only framing tells it this is a safe inspection step. However, no alternative is named (e.g., when to prefer inspire_h3d_summary or when to use inspire_run_python instead), and no prerequisites are given.

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