inspect_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a caching mechanism ('Reuses a stored template... compiles a new one only when none does') and notes it returns compiler refusals, which are useful behavioral details. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, keeping this from a perfect score.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by one behavioral detail. No redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

An output schema likely covers return values, but the description omits parameter semantics and explicit usage context. It provides a reasonable overview but lacks details about session requirements and refresh behavior, leaving the tool incompletely specified for an agent.

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% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain session_id or refresh at all. The agent cannot infer the meaning or effect of the refresh parameter from the description, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Read the current page' and return capabilities, entities, and compiler refusals. The verb 'read' plus the resource 'current page' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_capabilities (global list) and execute_capability.

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 usage (reading the current page within a session) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_capabilities. No exclusions or prerequises are mentioned, so the guidance is present only by implication.

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