st.prompt.inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clarifies that the tool inspects dynamic surfaces ('live' settings, 'runtime bridge state') and implies a read-only inspection. However, it does not disclose whether any side effects occur, whether external bridge state access is required, or what happens when runtime state is unavailable.

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 compact, starts with the primary verb, and uses a colon to enumerate the inspected surfaces. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description names the core inspected surfaces and optional runtime state, which is adequate for basic selection. But it leaves key context unstated: what 'indexed seams' are, what the returned data looks like (no output schema exists), and how includeRuntime exactly changes behavior. An agent could call it, but not with full confidence about the result.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'optional runtime bridge state' maps plausibly to the sole boolean parameter includeRuntime and clarifies what 'runtime' refers to. It still does not explicitly state the parameter name or default behavior, but the meaning is reasonably inferable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and identifies a distinct resource: the 'prompt/context assembly surface.' Listing 'indexed seams, live prompt-related settings, and optional runtime bridge state' narrows the scope and differentiates it from sibling chat/config inspect tools. However, 'indexed seams' is unexplained jargon, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like st.chat.inspect, st.prompt.set_injection, or st.bridge.health. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over a sibling.

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