inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' only echoes that. It adds no new behavioral context such as what the report contains, whether it is expensive to run, or how the profile/cognitive modes affect output. Nothing beyond the annotation is disclosed.

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?

It is a single short fragment, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; the lead statement conveys almost no actionable information. There is no wasted sentence because there is barely a sentence.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, no documented parameters, and ambiguous enum modes, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how the trace/profile/cognitive settings change behavior.

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% across four parameters, including two enums (profile, cognitive) and a trace toggle whose semantics are entirely opaque. The description provides no clarification of any parameter, leaving their meaning undocumented everywhere.

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 says it produces a 'quality/measurement report' but never states what is being inspected or measured, so the resource is unspecified. It also does not distinguish 'inspect' from plausible-report siblings like validate or blackbox. This is closer to a restatement of the tool name than a specific verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from validate, validate_pair, or blackbox, which are the obvious alternatives for a quality-report tool. An agent is left to guess which inspection tool to call.

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