Inspect bundle or policy

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds value by listing specific return data (manifest, namespaces, rule annotations, signature metadata), which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action and the tool invoked, second lists the return types. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It lacks edge case details (e.g., behavior on invalid input) but is sufficient for typical usage.

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 single parameter 'target' has a schema description that matches the description text exactly. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the action (inspect) with specific resource types (bundle, policy directory, or single Rego file) and lists return values (manifest, namespaces, rule annotations, signature metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rego_eval or rego_check, which evaluate or check policies rather than inspecting metadata.

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?

Description implies usage for inspecting policy metadata but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rego_describe_policy or other inspection tools. No explicit when-not or recommendations are provided.

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