quillbot_inspect

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description usefully adds that no detection is executed and that visible=true has a side effect (enabling user login), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not explain permissions or what the inspection returns, so it stays at a middling 3.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus the key scoping exclusion are front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness contributes to the vagueness noted elsewhere.

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 tool with an undocumented enum parameter, no output schema, and a somewhat ambiguous object of inspection, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what mode=humanizer does here or what the inspection actually yields, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 carry the parameter burden. It only addresses one of two parameters (visible=true → allows login) and leaves the mode enum (detector/humanizer) completely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Inspecciona controles visibles para validar la integración") and explicitly carves itself away from detection ("no ejecuta detección"), which separates it from sibling quillbot_detect. However, "controles visibles" remains vague about what is actually being inspected, so it stops short of full specificity.

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 negative clause "no ejecuta detección" implicitly routes detection work to quillbot_detect, and the note that visible=true enables user login hints at an interactive setup context. But it never states when to prefer this over quillbot_status, nor gives prerequisites or exclusions explicitly.

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