inspect_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a key behavioral trait: it redacts credentials and omits the full payload. This is useful context beyond what annotations would provide, though it does not mention other details like read-only status or permissions.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes an important safety qualifier. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple inspection tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description provides enough context to understand its purpose and limiting behavior. It could be improved by explicitly stating the input parameter's meaning, but it remains adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 0% and there is only one parameter, change_id. The description does not explain this parameter, but the name is self-explanatory in context. However, it adds no meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 ('inspect') and resource ('local plan summary'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by highlighting that it does not expose stored credentials or the full payload. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from other plan-related operations.

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 description implies the tool is used to review a plan change safely, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or list exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, especially given the sibling set includes plan creation and application tools.

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