d365_plugin_assembly_inspect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it uses a fixed .NET 10 metadata-reader process, does not require CRM settings, does not execute the inspected code, and does not verify signatures or resolve dependencies. This adds meaningful safety and limitation 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core capability first, then the operating context, then the explicit non-goals. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 local inspection tool without an output schema, the description covers what metadata is read and what is explicitly not done. It could be slightly more complete by routing users to the appropriate CRM/query sibling for registered assembly metadata.

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 filePath/file_path and contentBase64/content_base64. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond noting local use and no CRM settings, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: reading DLL identity, target framework, public plugin contract types, and reference metadata. It distinguishes itself from CRM-oriented siblings by saying it works locally and requires no CRM settings.

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?

It implies usage for local DLL inspection and gives exclusions such as no code execution, signature verification, or dependency resolution. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this over siblings like d365_plugin_assemblies_query or d365_plugin_registration_metadata.

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