mass_inspect_entity_config

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that validation is optional and conditional ('when available'), and states the return format (structured JSON). However, it does not explicitly declare the operation as read-only or describe side effects (e.g., whether validation can alter state). This is an implied non-destructive inspect, but not explicit.

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 well-structured with a summary, args, returns, KB reference, and example. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example repeats some arg details but adds a concrete use case. Overall, every section earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return fields. It covers the essential inputs, explains the return structure, includes a KB pointer, and provides a full example. It is adequate for an inspection tool with only two parameters and no side-effect complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: config_asset as 'MassEntity config asset path or object path' and validate as 'Validate the entity template against the editor world when available.' This adds meaningful context beyond type/name in the schema, clarifying semantics and expected usage.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource+scope: 'Inspect traits, parent config, and optional validation for a MassEntity config.' This precisely states what the tool does and what it covers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mass_create_entity_config (creation) and mass_add_trait (modification) by being an inspection operation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different inspection tool (e.g., statetree_inspect) might be more appropriate. The example shows usage but does not contextualize selection.

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