art.production.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. It is a read operation ('Get full details') but does not state whether it requires special permissions, the volume of data returned (potentially large), any pagination behavior, or whether the job must exist (error behavior). It does suggest scope by naming included sub-resources, but lacks critical operational context.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. The key word 'full details' and the listed components (events, attempts, plan) are front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a tool with one parameter and no complex output 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?

Given the tool's purpose (inspection) and the presence of many closely related production tools, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify the output structure (no output schema provided), does not differentiate from status/attempts, and gives no usage prerequisites. An agent might still confuse this with art.production.status due to lack of distinction, though the word 'full' hints at comprehensiveness.

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 100% (job_id has a simple description). The description confirms the parameter is a production job ID but adds minimal extra meaning. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify any format specifics (e.g., whether it accepts an existing job vs. pending).

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 ('Get') and resource ('full details of a production job'), listing the included sub-resources ('events, attempts, and plan'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'art.production.status' (which implies a lighter, status-only snapshot) and 'art.production.list' (which lists jobs), but the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like art.production.status or art.production.attempts. It does not mention that it retrieves a superset of status/attempts data, nor does it provide exclusions or contextual triggers. The distinction must be inferred from tool names.

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