inspect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context for the 'network' target (auto-starts capture, dumps on subsequent calls), which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It uses a bulleted list format to present target options concisely, with no wasted words. Every part serves a 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 rich input schema (enums, descriptions, 100% coverage) and annotations, the description covers key behaviors and target meanings. It lacks potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded), but for a read-only inspection tool with good schema info, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining what each target value returns (e.g., 'url/title/meta' for page, 'HTML structure' for dom) and highlighting prerequisites like 'requires selector' for element. This adds context beyond the enum values.

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 inspects the current page and provides a specific verb (inspect) and resource (current page). It enumerates distinct inspection targets (page, dom, a11y, element, network) with brief explanations, effectively differentiating from sibling tools like forge_draft or tap_doctor which serve different purposes.

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 explains when to use each target option via the target parameter and provides default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. The guidance is clear enough for an AI agent to choose targets appropriately.

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