inspect_local_dir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, and listing the returned summary items (file count, total bytes, sample names) gives a solid behavioral contract. It does not cover edge cases like missing paths or permission errors, but the core behavior is clear.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant wording. The core action and output detail are front-loaded, and every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return formatting. The tool is simple, has one required parameter, and the description plus sibling context provide a complete picture for correct invocation.

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 contains only a bare 'path' string with 0% description coverage. The description adds essential meaning by specifying that the path must refer to a local data directory, which is enough for the single parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('local data directory') and enumerates concrete outputs (file count, total bytes, sample names). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that target Kaggle, Drive, or experiment resources.

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 clearly establishes that this tool is for local directory inspection, making the use case apparent against the remote-focused siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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