origin_inspect_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only inspection but does not explicitly state side effects, limitations, or behavior on missing files. It lists inspected attributes, adding some transparency, but lacks comprehensiveness.

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 of 11 words, immediately stating the action and key attributes. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain the output format, any constraints on the file path, or behavior in edge cases, which a more complete description would cover.

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 description adds context to the 'path' parameter by specifying it refers to an exported graph file. However, with 0% schema coverage, more detail (e.g., required format, absolute path, error handling) would be beneficial. The added value is marginal but non-zero.

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 clearly states the tool inspects an exported graph file for specific properties (size, dimensions, hash, image quality). This verb+resource+scope combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_export_graph or origin_get_graph_info.

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, when not to use it, or any prerequisites (e.g., file existence). The description solely states functionality, leaving the agent without contextual usage advice.

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