online_inspect_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or output format. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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, with a one-line purpose, a KB reference, and an example. It is front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary verbosity. The example is a useful addition, though it duplicates the parameter name.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with an output schema and an optional parameter. It does not explain what the output contains, what the parameter does, or any context about the configuration being inspected. While the output schema covers return structure, the description leaves the parameter semantics and tool scope ambiguous.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of include_plugins. The example uses the parameter but provides no explanation of its effect. The parameter name gives some hint, but the description adds no additional value over the bare schema property.

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 inspects Online Subsystem and EOS project configuration, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling configuration tools like online_configure_default_subsystem, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The example reinforces the purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only provides an example call, but no context about when inspection is appropriate or when a configuration tool should be used instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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