venom_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: the output is redacted (no credential values, no prompt text), which is important for an agent to know. However, it doesn't disclose whether there are side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or permissions needed.

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 tightly structured with an overview paragraph and a clear Args section. Every sentence is informative, though the list of summary fields is a bit dense but still front-loaded with the purpose.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it still enumerates them which is somewhat redundant. It omits usage context and behavioral traits like side effects or permissions, leaving gaps for an inventory tool in a policy/agent ecosystem.

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 0% and there is one optional parameter. The description does provide meaning for the workspace parameter, noting it defaults to CSL_VENOM_WORKSPACE or the server's folder. This compensates for the schema's lack of description, though only minimally with no format details.

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 action (summarize/return inventory of discovered AI agents) with a clear enumeration of what the summary includes: kind, state, tool count, riskiest tool class, guard status, coverage, top findings. It's clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like venom_agent or universe_info.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. A user must infer that this is the entry point for understanding a workspace's discovered agents versus using venom_agent or other siblings. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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