inspect_pdw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that FUNC199 "stays opaque" (i.e., a known gap in coverage) — but says nothing about scope, cost, or what inspection actually entails.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the scope stated up front. The terseness is efficient, though the heavy jargon means brevity is partly bought at the cost of comprehensibility.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a tool embedded in a large family of generate_*/inspect_*/get_* PDW tools, the description omits what a PDW is in context, what the inspection covers, and how the result relates to the artifact tools — leaving an agent unable to place it.

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 single parameter `path` has 0% schema description coverage (title only, "Path"), so the description carries the burden and supplies nothing: not the path's base directory, expected file naming, or whether directories are accepted. A required parameter with no semantics anywhere is a real gap.

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?

States a verb ("Inspect") and a resource ("PDW sections, Chinese comments and known checksums"), so the general intent is derivable. However, "PDW" is never expanded and the description gives no basis for distinguishing it from sibling inspection tools such as inspect_ldr or inspect_rtc_snapshot, which likely have parallel purposes.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. An agent cannot tell whether to call this, get_pdw_artifact, or get_capabilities when it needs PDW information — nothing in the text routes it.

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