inspect_agent_training_input_custody

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it declares read-only behavior, enumerates exactly which inputs are sent, notes server-derived context, specifies the privacy-minimized return type, and explicitly lists sensitive data it never returns. This goes well beyond a basic safety note.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise behavioral constraints. Each of the three paragraphs adds distinct value — scope, input/output boundaries, and capability limitations — with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given an output schema is present, the description need not restate return values. It covers what the tool inspects, what inputs it accepts, what it returns, what it never exposes, and what it cannot do — sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in a large sibling tool set.

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%, but the description compensates by mapping the parameters: 'installation, revision, and optional project constraint' correspond to installation_id, revision_id, and optional project_id. It also clarifies which fields are server-derived and should not be passed, adding meaning beyond the bare property 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 specific verb and resource: 'Inspect exact-owner custody for one installed ACTION revision.' It clearly distinguishes this from closely related siblings like inspect_agent_learning_readiness and preflight_agent_training_pair by narrowing scope to custody verification for a single installed ACTION revision, not training readiness or admission.

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 explicitly states what the tool cannot do ('cannot upload, associate, admit, schedule, launch, persist, or invoke anything') and clarifies that verified custody is 'evidence, not training readiness,' which tells the agent when not to use it. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the exclusions are concrete and actionable.

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