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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation and 'return a human-readable summary' indicates the result type, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, error behavior, or any constraints on input content.

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, efficient sentence with the purpose and output front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and return type. It remains incomplete regarding sibling selection, explicit read-only behavior, and what the summary contains.

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 100%, so both input_format and input_content are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but does not exceed the baseline.

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), resource (fitness file), and output (human-readable summary), so the core operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as kaiord_validate or kaiord_extract_workout, which could also inspect fitness files for different purposes.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose kaiord_inspect over alternatives like kaiord_validate, kaiord_extract_workout, or kaiord_convert. Any selection must be inferred from the word 'Inspect' and 'summary', which is not enough for reliable tool routing.

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