inspect_commissioning

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by stating the report is 'shared' and 'non-authoritative,' which tells the agent this is not the source of truth and may represent pending/future bindings. With annotations already covering the read-only safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting them. It does not mention caching behavior affected by 'refresh,' but that is partially discoverable via the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the verb, the object, the shared/non-authoritative qualifier, and the domain scope.

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 read-only inspector with no required parameters and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The main gaps are not explaining the 'refresh' parameter's behavior and not stating explicitly that asset_types filters the report; still, the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and output schema carry much of the contextual burden.

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 does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter meanings. However, there are only two optional parameters: 'refresh' is self-explanatory as a boolean defaulting to false, and 'asset_types' is reasonably inferable as a filter for which asset types to include. The description mentions 'battery and EV bindings,' which maps loosely to asset_types, but does not explicitly explain either parameter.

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 ('Read') and resource ('shared, non-authoritative commissioning report') and adds the qualification 'for future battery and EV bindings.' That scope is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_state or list_audit_events, and the qualifier 'non-authoritative' adds important nuance about the data's trust level.

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 implies a read-only reporting tool and uses language like 'shared... report' and 'non-authoritative,' which helps an agent infer it is for inspection rather than execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the readOnlyHint annotation and sibling names.

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