get_engine_inventory

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

The description transparently discloses that inventories over 200 entities are truncated and cannot prove completeness, which is a significant limitation. This goes beyond a simple read operation and helps set expectations.

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 three sentences, each carrying meaningful information: what it reads, what it retains, and its limitation. It is tight and avoids 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 provides the tool's scope (company-scoped, one engine), its content (versions, digests, scope commitments, observation time), and a warning about truncation. It does not detail the output schema, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 parameters 'engine' and 'project_id' are only named in the schema with no descriptions; the tool description does not explain their roles or expected values. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 it reads a company-scoped inventory of persisted states for one engine, and mentions its role as a 'receipt for wind-down.' It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_engine_states, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 notes the truncation limit at 200 entities and advises using 'full source states alongside this receipt for wind-down,' giving partial guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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