Inspect waveform structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output flags unknown/reference limits, which is useful behavioral context, but omits pagination interaction details, permissions, and any error behavior.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing. Slightly terse for the number of concepts packed in, but nothing is wasted.

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 inspection tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description enumerates the kinds of structural data returned (names, ordering, radix, duration, record locations) even though there is no output schema. Pagination behavior is governed by the well-documented limit/offset params, so coverage is largely complete.

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 the seven parameters (path, limit, offset, project, workspace, childLimit, childOffset) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or scope detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb (decode/inspect) and resource (version4 SCF structure) and enumerates the concrete artifacts returned: scalar names, display ordering, groups/radix, duration, native record locations. It clearly distinguishes itself from scf_inspect by routing paginated logic events there. It does not, however, differentiate from closely named siblings such as scf_structure_edit or scf_editor_metadata.

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?

'Use scf_inspect for paginated logic events' gives one explicit alternative with its selecting condition. There is no guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus scf_structure_edit, scf_create, or scf_editor_metadata, so usage is only partially routed.

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