inspect_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details itself. It says "Read and summarize" and hints at mapping isolation, but it does not explain whether it creates or stores a mapping, what permissions are required, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key action and the mapping-isolation constraint are stated immediately.

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?

The tool is simple, with one required parameter and an output schema, and the description gives its core purpose plus a mapping constraint. Still, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, it leaves meaningful gaps about how to invoke it and how it differs from related source-inspection tools.

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% for the single required "source" parameter. The description implies the source is a new DWG, but it does not state whether the argument is a path, file name, identifier, or another form, so it only minimally compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Read and summarize a new DWG." This distinguishes it from mutation or delivery tools, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative such as export_source or query_source_entities.

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 phrases "new DWG" and "without reusing another source's mapping" imply this is for fresh sources with isolated mapping, giving some usage context. However, it does not state when not to use it or name the alternative tool for existing or mapped sources.

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