flowed_text_inspect

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares a safe read. The description adds the useful 'without interpreting their layout' boundary, marking it non-interpreting, but doesn't cover pagination, ordering, or error behavior beyond that.

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 zero waste; the scope boundary is packed in tightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a simple two-parameter read-only lister, the description is essentially complete; only sibling differentiation is missing.

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%, yet both params (path, workspaceId) are self-evident strings with patterns and constraints supplied in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, but little is needed; baseline 3 with an unmet opportunity to clarify path semantics.

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 (Lists) and resource (Inkscape flowed-text roots and paragraph counts). The 'without interpreting their layout' clause frames scope, though it doesn't name the closest sibling (flowed_text_convert) to differentiate.

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?

Implied usage: an inspection tool for flowed text. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or the alternative flowed_text_convert mentioned, so the agent must infer routing.

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