Inspect Next.js runtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds the operational context of compiling or resolving through a dev server, but it does not disclose what side effects or destructive behavior may occur, such as triggering builds, mutating server state, or overwriting build artifacts. It neither contradicts nor substantively enriches the annotations.

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. Every phrase earns its place: the verb, the resource, the two operation modes, and the server context are all present. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the tool has 0% schema description coverage and destructive annotations. The description is too thin to give an agent enough context about side effects, parameter meaning, or mode selection. Additional detail about what 'routeSpecifier' is, what 'compile' and 'resolve' do operationally, and what destructive effects to expect would be needed.

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 lack of parameter documentation. It names the two inspection modes (compileRoute and resolveServerAction) but does not explain sessionId, path, routeSpecifier, actionId, or the relationship between the 'selected dev server' and sessionId. This leaves significant semantic gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specific verbs ('Compile', 'resolve') and names the resource ('Next.js route', 'Server Action', 'local Next development server'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like web_debug_evaluate or web_breakpoint_set, but the described operations are distinctive enough to identify what the tool does.

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 the tool acts on a selected local Next development server, hinting at a session context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like web_debug_evaluate, web_repro_record, or web_fix_verify. It also does not explain when to choose compileRoute versus resolveServerAction beyond their names.

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