Inspections List Inspections View

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful behavior context: the result is an interactive, sortable, searchable table rendered in conversation, and it only exposes audit_id, template_id, and modification date. This goes beyond a generic list operation and informs the agent about constraints, though it stops short of discussing pagination or precise interaction mechanics.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: the first states the core action, the second gives a direct usage warning, and the third discloses the output limitation. Each sentence adds unique value and key information is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with three optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, visual output, and column limitations. It does not provide an output schema but compensates by describing the rendered table. Slightly more detail about pagination defaults or sorting behavior could make it fully complete, but the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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%; the input schema already fully documents limit, template_id, and modified_after with types, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 clearly identifies a specific verb (show), resource (inspections from the Mitti account), and delivery mode (interactive, sortable, searchable table rendered in conversation). It also explicitly differentiates from list_inspections by the visual browsing use case, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of list_inspections when the user wants to browse inspections visually.' This gives the agent a clear routing rule and names the alternative, satisfying the when/alternative requirement.

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