inspect_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only inspection behavior by stating it will 'show' the tool's description and input schema, which effectively communicates the lack of side effects. It does not mention error behavior for unknown tool names, but for a simple inspection tool this is a minor gap.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Show one tool's full description') and adds the relevant usage context ('before calling it') without redundancy.

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 description is complete enough for a simple one-parameter introspection tool: it states what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly stronger by noting that the tool is read-only or by mentioning how to discover tool names, but neither is essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the tool_name parameter as 'Exact registered tool name'. The description adds only minimal contextual value by implying the parameter identifies the tool to inspect, but that is already evident from the schema.

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 ('Show') and a clear resource ('one tool's full description and input schema'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is clearly an introspection tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_tool or toolset_report.

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 phrase 'before calling it' gives useful implied usage context: this tool is for pre-invocation inspection. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of related sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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