Inspections Get Inspection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (name, template, owner, dates, score, status) but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it can fail (e.g., not found), or any rate limits. Since it's a 'get' operation, the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated. The description adds some value by listing return fields, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key return fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple single-parameter get tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It identifies the resource, the identifier, and the key fields returned. It doesn't mention error cases (e.g., invalid audit_id) or explicitly state read-only behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 schema already documents the audit_id parameter well, including its format ('starts with audit_'). The description adds the context that this is the audit/inspection ID, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get full details of a single Mitti inspection by its audit ID.' It specifies the resource (inspection), the action (get full details), and the identifier (audit ID). It also lists the key fields returned (name, template, owner, dates, score, status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspections_list_inspections and inspections_get_inspection_web_report_link.

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 usage: use this tool when you need full details of a single inspection by audit ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals and sibling names (e.g., inspections_list_inspections for listing, inspections_get_inspection_web_report_link for web report link) make the usage context clear. A clear exclusion or alternative mention would push this to 5.

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