hyperframes_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' suggests a read-oriented operation, but the description does not disclose whether rendering occurs, whether files or reports are written, permission requirements, or side effects; it only adds the inspection target.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though its brevity is also the source of the missing guidance captured in other dimensions.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but this is an eight-parameter tool with no annotations and very low parameter documentation. The description is far too thin to make the tool's invocation behavior and parameter usage sufficiently clear.

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 13%, with just the overwrite parameter documented in the schema. The description does not explain the meanings of at, strict, samples, tolerance, max_issues, timeout_ms, or project_path, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage across eight parameters.

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: inspect rendered composition layout, focused on overflow and visual issues. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as hyperframes_validate, hyperframes_snapshot, or hyperframes_preview.

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 phrase 'for overflow and visual issues' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of hyperframes_validate, hyperframes_snapshot, or other inspection/validation siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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