Inventory agent setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: it reads "metadata only" (no content exfiltration) and requires an explicit consent flag, which is the kind of behavioral constraint an agent must know before calling.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the behavioral caveats. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The gap is the 0%-documented parameter set: an agent cannot tell from the description what root should point at or what the two scope-toggling booleans do, which is a meaningful hole for a 4-parameter tool.

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% for all four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and falls short. "Requires consent" gestures at the consent flag but never explains what consenting means, and include_home and include_unknown_names are completely unaddressed despite being the parameters that most change the scan's scope.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Inventory") and concrete resources (dot-directories, instruction layers, account-related variable names), so the agent knows this is a discovery/metadata scan. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like collect_context or get_setup_catalog.

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: the description establishes a prerequisite ("requires consent") but never states when to pick this over collect_context, get_setup_catalog, or list_diagnostics. An agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name alone.

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