inspect_dupe

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful detail by naming the returned data and mentioning pagination, but it does not cover permissions, error behavior, truncation, or other operational context. With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and returned content immediately, and every phrase contributes to the meaning.

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 the description need not explain return values in depth, and the read-only annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with a required 'name' parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important parameter meaning and the inspect-vs-read distinction incomplete.

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%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It hints at pagination through 'paginated positions/angles', but it never explains the required 'name' parameter or clarifies how limit and offset behave beyond the schema titles and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read metadata, model counts and paginated positions/angles from an existing dupe.' It clearly states what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish inspect_dupe from siblings such as read_dupe or list_dupes.

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?

It only implies usage by saying the dupe must already exist. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose inspect_dupe instead of read_dupe, list_dupes, or other sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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