scout_peek

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'open a URL, capture and inspect matching API,' without specifying side effects (e.g., network requests, state changes), safety, or required permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose concisely. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or separate clauses. The front-loading is good.

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, the description lacks details on what 'capture and inspect matching API' entails, how filtering parameters (method, path_contains) affect the result, and what the output represents. This vagueness reduces overall completeness for a tool in a complex domain.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds the context of 'one-shot API discovery' but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('open a URL, capture and inspect matching API') and its purpose ('One-shot API discovery'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like scout_apis, scout_scan, or scout_inspect, which likely have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use scout_peek versus alternative tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or typical use cases. Given the many sibling tools, this lack of direction hinders correct selection.

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