inspect_file

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. 'Does not modify files' merely restates destructiveHint=false, and the only genuinely additive behavioral detail is the accepted path-reference format. Nothing is said about what the inspection output contains or how large it may be for complex files.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then accepted input form, then the safety note. The final sentence duplicates the destructiveHint=false annotation and would be better spent on output/behavior detail, but nothing is padded or buried.

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-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing and accepted path forms. The remaining gap is that an agent is not told what the inspection response looks like, which matters given the enumerated variety of ROOT objects it reports.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'path' as a string file path, so the baseline is 3. The description does add value by clarifying that the path may be a returned path or an @resource/relative.root reference, which is meaning the schema's bare 'File path' does not convey.

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 names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (a ROOT file) and enumerates what is surfaced: directories, TTrees, RNTuples, histograms. That is far more informative than the tool name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings such as list_branches or validate_file.

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?

It states a clear usage window: 'before reading data', which tells the agent this is a discovery/orientation step preceding data reads. It gives no exclusions or explicit pointer to the alternative siblings (list_branches, get_branch_stats) for narrower lookups, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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