inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose output behavior: frames are outlined with purple borders, numbered, and their coordinates are listed in text. This tells the agent what it will get back, though it does not state read-only nature, file access requirements, or error behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the entry-point guidance, then the parameter note. Little waste, though the parameter line is almost too terse to be fully useful.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain behavior and returns, and it does describe the return content (dimensions, format, framed views with text coordinates). It leaves some gaps about output channel/format and failure modes but is largely adequate for a one-parameter inspection tool.

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% and the single 'path' field has only a generic title, so the description must compensate. It does by defining path as an absolute path to the image, adding format and meaning that the schema lacks.

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 states a concrete resource and output set: an overview of a reference image with its full picture, dimensions, format, and any frames from a multi-view sheet. This is more specific than the generic name 'inspect', but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like view or sheet.

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?

It gives an explicit entry-point instruction ('Start working with a reference with this tool'), which clearly tells the agent when to reach for it first. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use it.

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