inspect_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns certain data and that script source is bounded (via optional source_limit), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or any side effects. This is partial disclosure but lacks a full safety profile.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome. It includes no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description gives a fair high-level overview of inputs and outputs but omits details like return format, error behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema.

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%, so each of the 6 parameters already has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond naming the returned data; for example, it mentions 'bounded script source' which loosely maps to include_source and source_limit but does not clarify usage details. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('batch-inspects') and resource ('exact Studio paths'), and explicitly lists the returned data (properties, attributes, tags, children, optional bounded script source). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_project or search_source, which focus on different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as 'use this when you know exact paths' or direct users to other tools for fuzzy searching or analysis. This leaves usage context implicit.

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