campus_inspect

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

Adds significant context beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: it omits input values, hidden fields, cookies and storage; each call expires older refs; and frames cap at 250 controls with control_offset paging. These are real behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into omissions, ref expiry, usage caution, and paging. Dense but every sentence contributes; could be slightly tighter.

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 no output schema, the description covers return contents (text/controls, refs, hints, downloads), exclusions, ref lifecycle, and paging limits. It lacks explicit guidance on ref usage in sibling tools (campus_act), a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so description carries the burden. It explains control_offset paging and the 250-control frame limit, and implies provider selects the tab/frame set, though it doesn't detail provider enum effects.

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 specific verb+resource: read visible text and controls across provider tabs and frames. It's distinct from siblings like campus_act (interaction) and campus_export (downloads), though it doesn't explicitly name those distinctions.

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?

Implies usage as an inspection/read step within a campus workflow, but doesn't state when to use it versus campus_search or campus_scroll, or prerequisites like having opened a provider.

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