inspect_ribbon_solution

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (package identity plus bounded button/command summaries, optional selected diff XML) and by flagging that native merged definitions differ from solution diffs and that a package is not target/runtime evidence. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not address permissions or failure modes for malformed ZIPs.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then return shape, then the representational caveat. Dense domain jargon ('RibbonDiffXml', 'target/runtime evidence') but no filler sentences.

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 no output schema the description usefully sketches the return payload and its limits, and the package-vs-runtime caveat is a strong completeness signal. But for a 9-parameter tool with 44% schema coverage and an anyOf/oneOf input contract, the description leaves key calling details undocumented.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at include_xml ('optional selected diff XML') and top ('bounded ... summaries'), but logical_name, the exactly-one-source constraint, and the alias behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('inspect') and a precise resource ('one entity classic RibbonDiffXml from a local solution ZIP'), scoped to an offline package. The 'without CRM configuration' clause implicitly separates it from live-CRM ribbon tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'local solution ZIP without CRM configuration' framing implies the use case (offline inspection) and the closing caveat warns that a package is not runtime evidence, steering agents away from treating output as deployment truth. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement pointing to get_ribbon_definition or inspect_solution_package.

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