toolbox_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: this call does not trigger a scan or execute any tool, and it surfaces scan failure timestamps so the agent can judge staleness. That is genuine behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb comes first, the returned data is enumerated, and the negative constraint ('without scanning or executing tools') is appended where it lands hardest. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and with no parameters the definitional burden is low. The description covers cost (no scan), contents, and a staleness signal. Only the relationship to the three sibling tools is unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters or restating the empty 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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('inventory') and enumerates the three things returned: size, source scan timestamps/failures, and categories. An agent immediately knows this is a metadata snapshot. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like toolbox_describe or toolbox_search.

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 clause 'without scanning or executing tools' implies a cheap orientation call, which is meaningful usage guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over toolbox_search or toolbox_describe, nor does it sequence itself as a first step — the routing is left to inference.

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