pixelstream_inspect_config

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 says 'Inspect' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose what the output looks like, whether it queries the live project or a config file, whether it has side effects, or what 'plugin availability' means. The KB reference is a pointer but not a disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The KB reference and example are useful and take minimal space. No wasted words, though the example could be considered slightly redundant with the schema.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema details, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what the returned configuration contains, how to interpret plugin availability, or any failure modes. The KB reference helps but is not inline. An agent would likely need to consult the KB to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions include_plugins in the example, which adds some meaning (that the parameter controls whether plugin info is included). However, it doesn't explain the default behavior or what happens when false, and the schema already provides a default of true. The description adds minimal value beyond the example.

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 clear verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Pixel Streaming project configuration and plugin availability'). It distinguishes from siblings like pixelstream_configure_plugin and pixelstream_configure_streamer by focusing on inspection rather than configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 implies usage for inspecting configuration and plugin availability, and the example shows a call with include_plugins=True. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like pixelstream_configure_plugin or online_inspect_config, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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