bourne_inventory

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds the key behavioral boundary that no discovery is triggered, which is meaningful because discovery could be a separate, potentially expensive operation and annotations alone do not convey this distinction. No contradiction exists.

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?

One focused sentence front-loads the action and the accepted reference identifiers, then appends the crucial 'never performs discovery' caveat. There is no filler, repetition, or additional context that would distract an agent.

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?

Given one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description sufficiently conveys which reference to pass and demarks the operation's boundary. Return values do not need to be explained because an output schema exists.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameter already carries its meaning. The tool description mostly restates the same reference forms found in the schema and adds little new semantic detail, making the baseline of 3 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 opens with a concrete action and resource ('read an existing inventory') and lists the accepted reference forms (latest, full ID, unique prefix, @N). It further separates the tool from discovery-oriented siblings by stating it never performs discovery, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 makes the intended use clear: retrieve an already-existing inventory by one of several reference types. The explicit 'this never performs discovery' also gives a useful when-not signal against discovery-family tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives as replacements.

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