studio_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return envelope and 'inspection' implies a non-mutating operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose error behavior for invalid targets, prerequisites (e.g., active studio session), or potential cost/performance for large instances.

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 ~25-word sentence that front-loads the verb and scope before listing return categories. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of return categories is valuable and largely sufficient for a read-only inspection tool with fully documented params. Minor gaps remain—error behavior and prerequisites are unstated—but these are less critical for a non-destructive tool than they would be for a mutation 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 100%, so the schema fully documents target, includeChildren, and includeScriptSourceSnippet with examples. The description loosely maps to params ('child summary' and 'script presence') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('inspect'), a scoped resource ('a single Instance'), and enumerates the return categories (properties, attributes, tags, child summary, script presence, stable session UUID). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like property_get_all (specific aspect), studio_get_tree (whole tree), and studio_search (search across instances).

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 context is implied: 'comprehensive inspection of a single Instance' suggests using this when a full overview of one instance is needed. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, unlike a high-scoring definition that would route the agent to property_get or script_get_source for narrower needs.

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