st.worldbook.inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' accurately signals a non-mutating operation, and the mention of entries and extension metadata clarifies scope. However, it does not disclose output shape, possible errors, or whether the operation depends on any state, though nothing contradicts the read-only implication.

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 with no filler, front-loads the core action and resource, and adds meaningful scope in a compact clause. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is close to sufficient and names the key return scope (entries plus extension metadata) even without an output schema. The main completeness gap is the unexplained `book` parameter, which an agent must resolve before making a call. Overall it is adequate but has a clear, fixable gap.

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 tool description must explain the `book` parameter, but it only says 'Read one worldbook.' This implies `book` identifies the target worldbook but does not state whether it should be a name, ID, path, or some other reference. An agent cannot be certain how to fill the required argument.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('one worldbook'), and adds scope details ('including entries and extension metadata'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like st.worldbook.list or st.worldbook.entries, which are not meant to return the full worldbook.

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 when to use the tool—when a full worldbook object is needed—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over st.worldbook.list or st.worldbook.entries. It also does not mention prerequisites like locating a book ID or name first, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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