viewer_api_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned data is "live" and that it serves a discovery/reflection role, but does not say what the response contains or how stale or expensive the lookup is. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the discovery guidance immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only reflection tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the intent but leaves meaningful gaps: what the api/operation identifiers look like, and what the returned description/required-argument payload contains. Adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does map the two fields conceptually (api and operation) by saying it reads descriptions for "an API or operation", giving a hint that operation is a sub-selector, but it never says what form the api identifier takes or how the optional operation narrows the lookup.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading the live description and required arguments for an API or operation. This clearly separates it from siblings like ui_inspect, asset_inspect, and viewer_call, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

"Discover before calling unfamiliar operations" gives a clear trigger condition and implicitly positions it as the prerequisite to viewer_call. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g., for already-known operations), but the context is easy to infer.

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