scout_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Show full request and response details', which implies a read operation but does not confirm it's safe or idempotent. It fails to mention required permissions, side effects, or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool that might interact with network resources.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing need to describe returns), the tool operates in a context with 20+ sibling tools. The description does not explain where this fits in a typical workflow (e.g., after scout_apis to get IDs). It is too brief to be fully self-contained.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Show full request and response details for one or more APIs' uses a clear verb-resource combination (Show + details for APIs). It indicates the tool can handle multiple APIs, which distinguishes it from potentially similar siblings like scout_request that might focus on a single API. However, the verb 'Show' is passive and could be more dynamic.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scout_request or scout_apis. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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