buildx_inspect

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds a critical behavioral trait: 'Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit — inspect returncode/stderr in the result.' It also discloses the return structure, including a `truncated` flag, providing transparency beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, comparison, behavior, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is consistently readable. It achieves thoroughness without being verbose.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, scope, alternative, exit behavior, parameter semantics, and return format. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of comprehensive annotations, this is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'name - Builder name (defaults to the active builder)' and 'bootstrap - Boot the builder if it isn't already running.' These add functional meaning and defaults not present in 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'Inspect a builder instance.' and specifies it provides human-readable detail (driver, status, supported platforms) for one builder. It also distinguishes itself from `buildx_list` by contrasting the scope (one vs all builders) and output format (human-readable vs JSON), leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'buildx_list returns machine-parsed JSON for all builders.' This provides a direct comparison. It also advises that stdout is human-readable and suggests using `buildx_list` for JSON, giving clear decision guidance.

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