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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only inspection, but does not state whether the operation is side-effect free, whether authentication is required, how results are scoped, or what the response looks like.

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 wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves substantive gaps that are penalized in other dimensions.

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?

Given three optional parameters with no schema descriptions, empty annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the parameters, the return content, or how to interpret 'Veil hold entries' and 'trajectories,' leaving an agent under-informed.

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% for all three parameters. The description mentions 'trajectories,' loosely corresponding to include_trajectories, but never explains what 'plane' or 'signal_id' mean or how any parameter affects the inspection. It adds minimal semantic value over the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('current Veil hold entries and trajectories'), making the high-level purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as vara_get_scan or vara_query_signals, and 'Veil' is left unexplained for non-domain users.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies that it is for inspecting current Veil state.

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