statetree_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the Returns line clarifies the output shape. However, it does not explicitly state that the asset is not modified, nor does it mention preconditions like the asset needing to be compiled or ready.

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 clear Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections. Each section adds useful context, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The KB pointer is slightly extra but not wasteful.

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 single-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description covers the input, output, and provides a KB reference and example. Minor gaps remain around the meaning of 'readiness' and any error/edge-case behavior, but the existing output schema and example reduce the need for more detail.

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 only defines state_tree as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args line clarifies it as a 'StateTree asset path or object path' and the example provides a concrete realistic path, adding meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 specific verb ('Inspect'), a clear resource ('StateTree asset'), and the exact aspects inspected ('schema, readiness, and editor state hierarchy'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like statetree_create and statetree_add_state, which are mutation-oriented.

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 inspect-only nature is implied by the verb and the sibling context, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as statetree_create or statetree_add_state. There are no exclusion criteria or conditions for choosing a different tool.

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