Inspect Capacities space

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the distinction between the two output modes (compact catalog vs. detailed schema) and by noting the tool is token-bound. It does not contradict annotations. It could add more about caching/refresh behavior, but the schema covers that.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently conveys both modes and a usage recommendation. Every sentence earns its place without repeating schema information or annotations. This is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and usage context. It does not describe return values in detail, but the output schema handles that. It could mention the refresh parameter's purpose, but the schema already covers it. Overall, it is nearly complete for an inspection tool with this level of structured metadata.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'structure ID/name' which aligns with the structure parameter, but refresh and apiToken are not described in the tool description. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Capacities space'). It distinguishes between two modes—without a structure returns an object-type catalog, and with a structure ID/name returns schema details—which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_object or search_objects. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 explicitly advises calling this tool before unfamiliar create/update operations, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context of sibling mutation tools makes the usage obvious. This earns a 4 rather than a 5 due to the lack of explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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