inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is consistent with it. The description adds the three return modes, which is genuinely useful behavior information, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. Some added value beyond annotations, but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words that enumerates the three return modes. Efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves the mode-selection logic unstated rather than merely brief.

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?

With a full output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only/safety profile. Combined with 100% parameter coverage, the definition is adequate for an agent to call this correctly. The one real gap — routing between this and its siblings — is minor given the structured data available.

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 artifact_id, resource_path, and content_digest are all documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the artifact-version scoping but adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb (Return) and resource scope — stored metadata, a resource list, or one resource for an artifact version — so an agent knows what data comes back. It does not, however, explicitly position itself against siblings like discover or traverse, leaving the reader to infer the boundary. Clear but without sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among discover, traverse, config_show, or index_skills. The only selection cue (omit resource_path vs. supply it) lives in the input schema, not the description. No usage guidance beyond the bare purpose.

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