api_inspect

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real nuance by clarifying that discovering members will not execute them, but says nothing about result shape, pagination via 'limit', or how much of the API surface is returned.

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 padding; the read scope comes first and the negative constraint follows. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why parameter and return behavior go unaddressed.

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 tool with three entirely undocumented parameters, an opaque 'root' enum, no output schema and no example of the returned member/signature format, the description is too thin. An agent can tell it is safe introspection but not what to pass or what it will get back.

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 carries the burden and adds nothing: 'path', 'root' and 'limit' are never explained. In particular the six enum values for 'root' (csc, app, view, scene, model, layers) and the 40-default/100-max limit are left entirely to inference.

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 ('Read') and resource ('public native API members, signatures and documentation'), so the agent knows this is an introspection tool. It does not name a sibling (e.g. native_tools_list, native_tool_inspect, object_data_read) to disambiguate against the several other inspection tools in the list, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the clause 'does not invoke discovered methods' signals this is a discovery step prior to calling something else, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer native_tools_list or native_tool_inspect, and no note on prerequisites before inspecting a given root.

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