path_effects_inspect

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and 'without editing effect parameters' largely restates it. The qualifier 'preserved local' hints at a scoping rule but is never explained, and nothing is said about whether missing effects error out or return empty.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the negative constraint is tacked on without padding. Nothing wasted, though brevity here contributes to the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, the unresolved meaning of 'path' and of 'preserved local' leaves an agent guessing about inputs for a 2-required-parameter tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and fails to explain either parameter. Critically, 'path' is ambiguous here – it could be a filesystem path, an SVG path element, or an element reference – and the description's mention of 'local path references' does nothing to disambiguate it.

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 concrete verb ('Lists') and a specific resource (preserved local Inkscape path effects plus their local path references). The phrase 'without editing effect parameters' implicitly contrasts with the path_effects_manage sibling, so an agent can separate read from write, though the contrast is only implied rather than named.

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?

Usage is implied: inspection-only, so editing should go to path_effects_manage. There is no explicit 'use this when / not when' statement, no prerequisite info, and no direct pointer to the alternative tool.

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