inspect_bound_variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that boundVariables override raw writes, that insideInstance nodes silently reject writes, and that the tool dumps specific state fields. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, or auth requirements. The disclosed behavioral traits are useful and accurate.

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 concise and well-structured. A single sentence delivers the diagnostic purpose, a list of dump items, and a concrete use case. Every word is informative; no filler.

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?

Given 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (per-node state with specific fields) and when to use it. The use case provides practical context. It could benefit from mentioning pagination or output format, but overall it is complete for a diagnostic 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation. The schema already clearly defines 'scope' enum and 'nodeIds' array. No further elaboration is needed.

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's purpose: a diagnostic that dumps per-node state including boundVariables, style IDs, and insideInstance status. It explicitly indicates that it helps diagnose why a layer doesn't re-theme despite apply_theme reporting success, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_node or debug_resolve_token.

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 a clear use case: determining why a layer visually doesn't re-theme when apply_theme claims the write was applied. While it implies when to use this tool, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or list alternative tools. The context is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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