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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only and returns state metrics, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects) or any authentication requirements. The term 'Inspectable State' implies no mutation, which is adequate but minimal.

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 short sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose ('Inspectable State'). It efficiently lists the returned components without unnecessary words.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on the format or structure of the returned data (e.g., whether results are lists or objects). It adequately conveys the general content but could be more informative.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly notes 'No input'.

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 clearly states that the tool provides an 'Inspectable State' overview including counts, recent activity, roadmap-signal freshness, health, and last calibration run. It distinguishes from siblings like list_assessments or list_kb_signals, which are more specific, by being a broad summary.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only notes that it requires no input.

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