document_inspect

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals read-only behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'without mutating it'. It adds minimal new behavioral context, such as the requirement of an 'authorized' document, which hints at access control. However, it does not disclose edge cases like behavior on missing documents, revision mismatches, or the effect of the 'level' parameter on the response. Given the annotation covers the core safety trait, the description adds only a small amount of extra transparency.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the key action ('Reads') followed by the specific data types. It contains no filler words or redundant explanations, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description does not provide enough contextual information for an agent to call the tool correctly. It omits explanations of the four parameters, particularly 'level' and 'expectedRevision', which are not self-evident. The presence of an output schema helps, but the lack of param semantics and usage guidance means the agent must guess or inspect elsewhere. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation, and the description does not mention any parameters at all. The agent is left to infer the meaning of 'path', 'workspaceId', 'level', and 'expectedRevision' from their names alone, with no explanation of format, defaults, or how they affect the operation. This is a significant gap because the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 reads SVG viewport dimensions, viewBox, and revision from an authorized document, with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly notes it does not mutate the document, which aligns with its read-only intent. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from other read-focused siblings like document_preflight or document_settings, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that document_preflight might be better for validation, or that elements_query is for element-level inspection, or that mutation tools should be used for changes. The read-only nature is implied by 'without mutating it' but there is no comparison or exclusion of sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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