spine_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important trait: this is a pure read of a file that accepts either a .spine project or an exported JSON. It also explains that the detail flag controls output volume ('full' includes every animation track). It stops short of describing failure behavior for missing or malformed files.

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 return contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the two parameters fit in a compact Args block. There is no filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Both parameters are covered and the read-only nature is evident. The remaining gap is preconditions and error behavior for a tool with no annotations to fall back on.

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 the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters: it names 'project' as a path to a .spine project or exported Spine JSON, and it supplies the otherwise undocumented 'detail' values (summary default, full) plus what 'full' adds. Minor gap: no note on whether relative paths or path resolution rules apply.

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 and resource (read a .spine/.json file) and enumerates exactly what the result contains: version, bone tree, slots, skins, attachment counts, animations with durations and events. That enumeration implicitly separates it from spine_validate and spine_doctor, which check rather than describe a project.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call before editing a project. It never says when to prefer it over spine_validate, spine_doctor or spine_list_projects, and gives no preconditions such as whether the project must already exist on disk.

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