resources_inspect_remote

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add non-obvious traits – and it does: it discloses that nothing is fetched over the network, which is a meaningful operational constraint beyond the annotation. It stops short of explaining permissions, remote access behavior, or failure modes for unresolvable URIs.

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 dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the remediation note trailing. It is efficiently sized, though packing the remediation guidance into a trailing clause makes it slightly harder to parse than a separated second sentence would.

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, and the read-only annotation covers safety. Still, the two required parameters are undocumented and there is no statement of where inspection applies (workspace-scoped document only?), leaving an agent to guess at invocation inputs.

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% for two required parameters ('path' and 'workspaceId'), so the description carried the full burden of explaining them and supplies none. It neither clarifies what 'path' points at (document, SVG file, or asset) nor what the workspace scoping means, leaving the only useful hint to the regex in the 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 gives a specific verb ('Reports') and a precise resource ('remote SVG resources'), plus a defining scope constraint: inspection happens 'without downloading them.' It does not name a sibling tool it overlaps with, so an agent must infer its position relative to images_manage or assets_package.

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 only implied: the stated purpose (find remote references) plus the mention of 'remediation' suggests it is a pre-replacement audit step. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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