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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description discusses requirements 'for mutations' and says a timeout is an unknown outcome with 'never retry with a new ID' semantics. Those mutation/idempotency implications conflict with the read-only annotation.

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 short and front-loads the basic purpose, then moves to requirements, return value, and timeout behavior. It is efficient, though the mutation/retry wording is confusing.

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 six-parameter required tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is too sparse. It does not explain selector, controlToken, the observed-state shape, or sandbox behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It roughly maps expectedRevision, expectedComponentVersion, operationID, componentID, and selector, but omits controlToken and gives no format or constraint details.

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 first sentence names a verb and resource ('inspect' a 'typed component through the active sandbox') and says it returns observed state, but it does not specify what is inspected or distinguish this from sibling read_component. The purpose is inferable but 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?

The description lists required fields for mutations and gives a retry warning, but it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_component or get_operation. An agent gets preconditions, not usage guidance.

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