Inspect the brain

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with an explicit guarantee that every read leaves the brain untouched. It also adds non-obvious behavior: global_map is computed live, superseded facts are hidden by default, and params of non-selected views are silently ignored.

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 dense but deliberately organized per view, with the read-only safety statement and sibling alternative front-loaded. Each sentence carries a distinct fact; the only small redundancy is the repeated read-only idea, which is acceptable given the tool's breadth.

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 tool with five modes, nine params, and many siblings, the description covers all view semantics, param defaults, ignored params, and output shape sufficiently. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to restate return values, and nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by tying each parameter to its view context (e.g., hottest-first ordering for offset, min_strength filtering connections, include_superseded overriding hidden facts). Much of it paraphrases schema descriptions, but it adds integrated view-specific behavior rather than merely repeating field names.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: read-only views of the brain, and immediately differentiates itself from crbro_recall (search by content). The five view modes are enumerated with their exact outputs, so an agent can tell what crbro_inspect does without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit alternative for content search (crbro_recall), marks view=sessions as the only place session summaries are read, and states that unrelated params are ignored. It does not enumerate exclusions against the other siblings, but for the main choice between inspect and recall the guidance is clear.

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