inspect

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

The description explicitly states 'read/write properties' and includes actions like set_property, set_component_property, delete_object, and restore_snapshot, which contradict the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines trust.

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 concise sentence with no filler, but it sacrifices detail and includes the misleading 'read/write' claim. It front-loads the purpose but fails to convey the tool's complexity or safety profile.

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?

This tool has 16 parameters, 31 action enum values, and no output schema. The description provides almost no operational context, leaving agents without guidance on which action to choose, how parameters combine, or what to expect in return. It is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 69%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only vaguely referencing property access and snapshots without explaining parameter relationships or action-specific usage.

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 'Inspect' and names the resource ('any UObject'), listing core activities like read/write properties, list components, and query class info. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'observe' or 'control_actor', and the read/write breadth makes it less focused.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply enumerates capabilities without contextualizing when each action is appropriate.

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