inspect_doc_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the output fields (total_elements, total_length, tables, table_details) and the return type (JSON string). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but as an inspection tool, it is safe to assume read-only. Slight lack of detail on authentication or rate limits, but adequate.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points. It front-loads the purpose and usage. However, some redundancy exists (workflow steps repeat earlier points), slightly reducing conciseness. Still, it is easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description sufficiently explains the return value and its use for table insertion. It covers the key aspects for the intended workflow. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or output schema details, but overall complete for the tool's role.

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%, yet the description only repeats parameter names without adding meaningful context. The 'Args' section provides no additional semantics beyond what the schema types imply. For example, it does not explain what 'user_google_email' or 'document_id' represent or how to obtain them.

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 it is for finding safe insertion points and understanding document structure, listing specific use cases like table insertion, layout understanding, and statistics. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing its role as a prerequisite for table creation.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance with sections 'USE THIS FOR' and 'WORKFLOW'. It states to ALWAYS call before creating tables, and outlines step-by-step how to use the output. This effectively tells when and how to use the tool.

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