inspect_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the result is a JSON string containing StackInfo with resolved versions and evidence sources, and notes the default project directory. It does not mention failure modes, read-only guarantees, or whether inspection is limited to local files, but it is adequate for a clearly inspection-oriented tool.

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 compact and well-structured with a single verb-first sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place and there is no redundant prose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the input semantics, default behavior, and return shape. It is largely complete; the only gap is that it does not clarify when to use this tool over its dependency-focused siblings.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section fully compensates: project_dir is defined as the root directory of the Python project to inspect and defaults to the current directory. This is exactly the semantic meaning an agent needs beyond the raw type and default.

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?

Description states a specific action—detect—and the exact subject: Python version, package manager, resolved dependencies, and supported libraries. This is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tools resolve_constraints and freshness_audit.

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 given about when to use inspect_stack instead of resolve_constraints or freshness_audit. The description explains what the tool does but not the conditions or prerequisites that would select this tool over its alternatives.

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