inspect_solution_package

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it defines the safety envelope (headers, paths, inflated sizes and CRC bounds), confirms no extraction or execution, and lists explicit non-guarantees (authenticity, safe code, dependencies, contents, deployability). This is exactly the sort of limitation disclosure an agent needs before trusting results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the validation bounds, then the non-guarantees. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated from the name.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the returned scope (identity, publisher, declaration counts) and explicitly bounds what is *not* verified. For a 4-param, no-output-schema read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results accordingly.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already cover absolute paths, the 32 MiB base64 ceiling, and the exactly-one-input-source rule. The description only references the two input modes generically ('ZIP or base64') and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('inspect a local solution ZIP or base64') plus a scope qualifier ('without CRM configuration') that separates it from CRM-bound siblings like list_solutions or get_solution_snapshot. It also enumerates exactly what is read (solution.xml identity, publisher, declaration counts), so the agent knows this is a static package inspection, not a deployment or query tool.

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?

'without CRM configuration' clearly signals the use case (offline/local package triage) and implicitly excludes CRM-connected siblings, and the bounds-and-CRC language tells the agent this is for validated metadata extraction. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when *not* to pick this one, so it falls just short of a 5.

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