hpe_inspect_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that the tool is an alias, not whether it is read-only, what permissions it needs, how it handles errors, or what it actually inspects. Little behavioral context is added.

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 sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It is as short as possible while conveying the alias relationship.

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?

With no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete for an agent that must know how to call it. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not compensate for the missing input and behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention pdf_path or page_number at all. For two required parameters, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the bare names already in the schema.

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?

Description states the tool is an alias for hpe_inspect_virtual_grid, which identifies its relationship but not its actual operation; it does not specify what 'inspect geometry' does or what the inspection entails. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the canonical tool, but the functional purpose remains vague.

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?

'Backward compatibility alias' gives a clear context for when to use it (legacy compatibility) and implicitly points to hpe_inspect_virtual_grid as the modern alternative. No explicit exclusions or step-by-step conditions, but enough routing information for an agent.

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