Inspect Template Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the exact scope of inspection (structure, tags, fallback risk), though 'fallback risk' could be more defined. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 covers the tool's purpose and scope given its simplicity (2 params, rich annotations). However, without an output schema, a brief note on the return format (e.g., 'returns JSON with structure and risk flags') would improve completeness. Still, it is adequate for a read-only inspection tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema's descriptions already provide (e.g., workspaceId condition, templateDocId purpose). No additional semantic value is contributed.

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 verb 'Inspect' and the resources: 'template doc's native structure, tags, and fallback risk'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like instantiate_template_native and analyze_doc_fidelity by focusing on pre-instantiation inspection of templates. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 includes 'before instantiation', which provides useful context for when to use this tool relative to instantiate_template_native. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like analyze_doc_fidelity. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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