Get Active Reinspection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'GET' and 'returns a paginated JSON array' adds useful behavioral context. It also specifies the API version and endpoint. However, it introduces potential confusion by describing a paginated array when the endpoint path suggests a single resource, slightly reducing clarity.

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 extremely concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently communicates the operation, required parameters, pagination details, and the API endpoint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the return format ('paginated JSON array' with metadata) and required parameters. However, it does not explain what an 'active reinspection' is or provide details on the returned Inspection object structure. With no output schema provided, the description could be more helpful in describing the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It mentions 'page and per_page to control pagination' but does not elaborate on default values or constraints beyond what is already in the schema.

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 that the tool gets the active reinspection for an inspection, specifying the resource and action. However, there is minor ambiguity: it mentions 'fetch the full details of a specific Inspections by its identifier' (plural) and says returns a 'paginated JSON array of Inspections', which might conflict with the expectation of a single active reinspection. This slight inconsistency prevents a perfect score.

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 explains when to use the tool: to fetch full details of a specific inspection's active reinspection. It does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., get_inspection, list_inspections). Given the large number of sibling tools, this lack of differentiation limits the score.

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