smartobject_inspect_definition

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. It does state that the tool inspects and returns structured JSON with slot names, transforms, tag containers, and bounds, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, what happens on invalid paths, permissions, or whether any underlying state may be affected, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 separate Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections. Every line adds value, the key purpose is front-loaded, and the example makes the call signature concrete. There is no redundant 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 tool is simple: one parameter, an output schema, and clear return content. The description covers the input format, output structure, and gives a concrete example plus a KB reference. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though it could have added a brief note on invalid-path behavior or prerequisites, so it stops just short of fully comprehensive.

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, and it does. It explains that 'definition' is a 'SmartObject definition asset path or object path', which adds meaning beyond the raw schema title. The example further clarifies expected input format. It is not perfect because 'object path' is not fully elaborated, but for a single-parameter tool it provides solid semantic grounding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a specific resource ('SmartObject definition') and enumerates concrete aspects inspected ('slots, tags, and bounds'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smartobject_create_definition and smartobject_add_slot by describing an inspection operation rather than creation or modification.

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 through the verb 'Inspect' and the return statement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as statetree_inspect or smartobject_add_slot. There are no exclusion conditions or explicit alternative comparisons, so usage guidance is only implied rather than clearly articulated.

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