inspect_agent_learning_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden and handles it exceptionally well. It discloses read-only behavior, server-derived scope and RBAC, v1 response guarantees, the specific missing authorities reported, and a negative side-effect guarantee. This goes far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 first sentence is a crisp front-loaded summary, and each following sentence adds distinct value: return contents, server-derived scoping, v1 response constraints, and explicit non-behaviors. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 covers purpose, scope, return contents, and side-effect guarantees, and an output schema exists to define the response shape. It is slightly incomplete on parameter roles and does not guide the agent toward sibling tools, but for a read-only inspection tool it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by framing the operation as targeting 'one exact installed ACTION revision,' which clarifies the role of installation_id and revision_id. However, it does not explain project_id or give field-level guidance for any parameter.

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 specific verb and object: 'Inspect critical learning readiness for one exact installed ACTION revision.' It clearly labels the tool as read-only and specifies what it returns, distinguishing it from sibling inspect/preflight/admission tools by scoping it to readiness inspection of an installed action revision.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it is for inspecting readiness, not changing state, and it explicitly states 'It cannot admit, schedule, launch, persist, or invoke anything.' It does not name alternatives or state when to use a different sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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