inspect_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation ('analyze', 'extract') and suggests safety by recommending use before modifications. But it fails to disclose error handling, required permissions, or potential side effects on file system state.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a usage hint. Every sentence contributes meaning 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and use case. However, it omits details about the output format or behavior for edge cases (e.g., file not found), which would be helpful for an agent.

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 100% with the single parameter well-described. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely reiterating that the tool analyzes PHP files. It does not elaborate on the parameter's format or constraints further.

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 it analyzes PHP files and extracts specific components (classes, methods, properties, etc.), providing a clear verb and resource. While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly through its specific focus on PHP file inspection, it does not explicitly contrast with other inspect_* tools like inspect_conventions.

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 includes 'Use before modifying any file' which gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools.

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