native_tool_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not convey: discovered methods are not invoked, i.e. inspection has no side effects on the tool. It says nothing about output shape, pagination behavior of "limit," or errors for unknown tool names.

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 compression costs a little clarity, since "scene editor" is not self-explanatory, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and four undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much for an agent to infer about how to call the tool correctly across its modes. It should at minimum explain name vs path, what editor=true changes, and what limit governs.

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 all four parameters (name, path, limit, editor) lack documentation anywhere. The description only obliquely touches two of them: "exact" hints that name must match precisely, and "or its scene editor" hints at the editor flag. The meaning of path and limit is entirely unexplained.

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 verb ("Inspect") and a resource ("an exact installed tool"), and adds that it can also target "its scene editor." However, the phrase is ambiguous about what "scene editor" means, and it never names the sibling it contrasts with (native_tools_list for enumeration, api_inspect or object_inspect for other inspection targets), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only usage signal is the negative clause "without invoking discovered methods," which hints at a read-only survey rather than execution. There is no statement of when to choose this over native_tools_list or api_inspect, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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