st.mvu.chat_state.inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' reasonably implies a read-only operation and the location is specified, but it does not state return behavior, failure modes, or explicitly confirm no side effects.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. It earns its place by identifying both the resource and its precise location.

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 tool is domain-specific (MVU runtime state), has no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented required parameters. The description does not explain what the returned snapshot looks like, how avatar/fileName are used, or any prerequisites or limitations, so the agent lacks key context for correct invocation.

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 for the undocumented 'avatar' and 'fileName' parameters. It does not explain how these parameters map to the inspection target, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the tool name and schema alone.

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 action ('Inspect'), the resource ('MVU runtime variable snapshots'), and the storage location ('chat message variables[].stat_data'). It distinguishes itself from mutating siblings like st.mvu.chat_state.patch.

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 what the tool inspects but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as st.chat.inspect, st.mvu.settings.get, or st.mvu.entries. No explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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