Inspect native fonts and explicitly decoded text

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: explicit latin1/windows-936 decoding with 'no guessed encoding' and malformed-encoding diagnostics. This tells the agent how results are produced and what edge cases surface. It stops short of describing output shape or access requirements.

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 front-loaded with the inspected artifacts before the decoding and diagnostics notes. Dense but no wasted phrasing; the semicolon-packed second sentence is slightly terse but earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the returned categories (records, font strings, codes, metrics, raw bytes) and flags pagination plus malformed-encoding diagnostics. Adequate, though it does not explain result structure or the project/workspace scoping tradeoff.

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 coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters (including the encoding enum and pagination) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the decoding choice and pagination but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Inspect) and clearly enumerates the resources: GDF/SYM q records, original font strings, built-in font codes, stored metrics, and raw text bytes. This distinguishes it well from generic gdf_inspect, though it never names the edit counterparts (gdf_text_format_edit) as its siblings.

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 explains what is inspected but never states when to prefer this over gdf_inspect, sym_inspect, or the text edit tools, nor any prerequisites. The agent gets no routing guidance despite a crowded sibling set.

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