inspect_tool_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the purpose but does not reveal the output format (e.g., boolean, score, report), side effects (presumably read-only), or what 'high-signal' detection entails. For a security-screening tool, missing these details hampers an agent's understanding.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Screen.' No wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's purpose (prompt injection screening), no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool returns or how the agent should interpret the result. An agent would lack key information to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the inputs come from an 'external tool,' providing context beyond the raw schema constraints (string lengths). However, it does not elaborate on the expected format or validation rules for name or description, offering only minimal additional meaning.

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 states the tool's function: 'Screen an external tool name and description for high-signal prompt injection.' The verb 'screen' and the resource 'external tool name and description' are specific. This purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculator, read_file, and fetch_url, which perform different 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 should be used when examining external tool metadata for prompt injection. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools such as fetch_url might also involve external content, but no guidance is given. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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