aia_inspect

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

The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is helpful. But no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavior for invalid paths, malformed .aia files, or the structure of the returned output.

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?

One sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then lists the object types covered (screens, components, assets, properties). Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 simple listing tool with a single parameter, the description is mostly complete. The lack of an output schema is mitigated somewhat by the description naming what is listed. Still, it could benefit from clarifying that it runs a read-only inspection of the project and from mentioning behavior for invalid inputs.

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?

The schema already describes the path parameter as 'Absolute or relative path to an .aia file.' The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: "List screens (with their components), assets and properties of an .aia project." This clearly communicates what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like aia_get_screen, which may also expose components or properties in more detail.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this to review project structure before making edits.' The intended usage must be inferred from the verb 'inspect' and the sibling list.

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