spine_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'inspect' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no modifications or detail side effects, error handling, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two sentences: one for purpose, one for exclusions. Front-loaded, no redundant phrasing, efficient communication of essential information.

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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error modes, or behavioral guarantees. Could be more complete but meets minimal adequacy.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter inputPath, and the schema description is clear. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool inspects Spine project files and folders, with a specific verb 'inspect' and explicit resources (e.g., .spine, .json, .skel). It distinguishes from siblings by listing what not to do (export, modify, pack, open), but does not explicitly differentiate from other inspection/analysis sibling tools like spine_analyze_json, so not a full 5.

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?

Provides negative guidance ('Do not use it to export, modify, pack, or open projects'), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not offer positive context or explicitly compare to sibling tools for when to use this over alternatives, leaving ambiguity.

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