inspect_capabilityInspect one live SqueezeOS capability by sml_id and return current metadata and optional liveness evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| probe | No | ||
| sml_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by emphasizing 'live' and by disclosing that the result includes current metadata and optional liveness evidence, which goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.
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 with no filler. It states the action, target, input, and expected output efficiently.
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 simple read-only tool, the core behavior is clear, but the description is incomplete in important areas: it does not define what 'liveness evidence' contains, does not clarify the probe parameter's role, and no output schema exists to fill that gap. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer details.
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 carry parameter meaning. It names sml_id as the identifier, but it does not explicitly explain the probe parameter, its default value of true, or how it controls the 'optional liveness evidence' mentioned in the description. That phrase is ambiguous about whether optionality refers to the parameter or the output.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('one live SqueezeOS capability'), and a precise lookup key ('by sml_id'). It also states what is returned, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like discover_capabilities and compare_capabilities.
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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you have an sml_id and need current metadata or liveness evidence for a single capability. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as capability_manifest or verify_provider_trust, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capability discovery, inspection, comparison, recommendation, system status, x402 contract/evidence/readiness, and provider trust verification. The descriptions precisely differentiate actions on the same domain (e.g., discover vs. inspect vs. recommend capabilities), leaving no ambiguity.
Naming follows a lowercase-underscore convention but mixes styles: some are verb_noun (compare_capabilities, inspect_capability, verify_provider_trust) while others are noun phrases or standalone nouns (capability_manifest, system_status, x402_contract). The pattern is readable but not consistently verb-oriented.
10 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized read-only server. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of SqueezeOS capability management, x402 metadata, or provider trust, and none feel redundant or superfluous.
For the stated purpose of providing read-only capability discovery, x402 payment metadata, and provider trust verification, the surface is comprehensive: manifest, discovery, inspection, comparison, recommendation, status, trust verification, contract, evidence, and readiness are all covered. No obvious operations are missing for this read-only scope.