tela_inspect

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it reads raw stringkeys directly (not limited to 50), decodes TELA-specific schemas (header/mods/commit), and honestly reports updateability as 'unknown' because it cannot be derived from chain state. No contradiction 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?

The description is thorough and well-structured with clear sections (overview, when to call, input requirements, output). Every sentence contributes necessary information, though the output specification is lengthy; it could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a detailed discriminated union of return types with field explanations, compensating fully. It covers edge cases (unknown SCID returns not_tela), explains why this tool is needed, and includes all behavioral nuances. For a complex tool, the description is complete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the schema by restating requirements (e.g., 'Must be 64 hex chars' for scid) and adds context that topoheight is optional and its omission uses latest state. This adds marginal value beyond schema, earning a 4.

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 clear verbs like 'fetch', 'parse', and 'auto-detect' to explain the tool's action on a specific resource (TELA contract by SCID). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that this tool auto-detects standards (INDEX vs DOC) and handles all DOC references, unlike explain_smart_contract which caps at 50 keys.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool as the first step for TELA-related queries and provides clear exclusions: prefer this over dero_get_sc or explain_smart_contract because those handle TELA generically and miss details. The when-to-call criteria are concrete and actionable.

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