engine_inventory

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explicitly declares read-only with '[READ]' and describes per-engine behavior differences. However, missing details on permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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?

Extremely concise: a front-loaded purpose line, engine-specific details, and clear parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, engine-specific behavior, and parameter meaning. Missing return format or error handling, but adequate for the tool's scope.

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?

Only one optional parameter 'target'. Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains it's an inference target name from config and that omitting uses default. This adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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 it's a READ operation that returns running-model identity and engine server info, and explains engine-specific behaviors (vLLM, SGLang, TGI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like model_list, which are model-level.

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 implies usage for engine-level inventory via engine-specific details, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., model_list or engine_health). No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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