inspect_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and it usefully enumerates the returned content ('source script, recipe parameters and successful revisions'), but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior on a missing asset.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the returned artifacts come first and the timing cue ('before editing') closes it. Efficient, though its terseness is close to under-specification.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool the description covers the essentials (what is read, when) but omits what the asset is, whether the read is safe/idempotent, and how it relates to the many sibling inspect tools.

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% and the description never mentions asset_id or what identifies a valid asset. The sole parameter's name is semi-self-documenting, but nothing compensates for the documented gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resources returned: source script, recipe parameters, and successful revisions. An agent knows what it gets back, but the description never differentiates this from siblings like inspect_target, inspect_scene, or inspect_library, so routing still requires inference.

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?

'before editing' gives one implied usage context (pre-edit inspection), which is genuine guidance but minimal. It names no alternatives (e.g., inspect_target for targets) and states no when-not condition, leaving the agent to guess which inspect_* tool applies.

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