metahuman_inspect_package

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

The description conveys the core behavior: inspecting a manifest and scanning package assets, which implies a non-mutating operation. However, since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, requires specific permissions, or only reads existing registered data.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only a short KB pointer and one useful invocation example. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

The basic operation, a KB reference, and an example invocation are present, and the existence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. Still, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves meaningful gaps for a large sibling toolset, making this adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for both parameters. The example provides concrete values for character_name and metahuman_root, but it does not explain what the root path means, how the default empty string behaves, or how the two parameters relate.

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 action ('Inspect') and the resource ('a registered MetaHuman manifest' plus 'package assets'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling metahuman_* tools, but the read-only inspect/scan intent is distinct enough from import/link/assign/configure.

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 alternative routing is provided. The phrase 'registered MetaHuman' and the KB pointer give some context, but in a toolset with many metahuman_* siblings, an agent receives no help choosing this over metahuman_import, metahuman_configure_wrapper, or similar inspection tools.

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