inspect_external_assembly

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the two modes and their outputs, and mentions the assembly is closed-source. However, it does not discuss prerequisites (e.g., assembly must be referenced) or error cases, leaving minor gaps.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and modes. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or waste.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return types for each mode. It could be slightly more detailed about the format of returned data, but overall it's sufficient for an inspection tool.

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 adequate parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds substantial meaning by explaining the behavior of 'mode' and 'namespaceFilter' (e.g., 'mode=summary' returns namespaces and type counts, 'namespace' requires namespaceFilter). This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 a referenced closed-source assembly with two explicit modes (summary and namespace) and what each returns. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_type_overview or find_references.

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 for inspecting external assemblies but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_public_api_surface or get_type_hierarchy. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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