inspect_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and "View"/"inspect" only implicitly signals a read operation. It does add genuine behavioral context by disclosing what comes back (tool summaries plus a revision marker) and that full schemas require a separate call, but it says nothing about side effects, error behavior for stale or invalid pages, or result size.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, when to re-run it, and where schemas come from. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, refresh trigger, and output granularity, which is most of what is needed. It still leaves the pageId's origin and the relationship to visit_page/pages/describe_tool unexplained.

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?

The single pageId parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains what a page identifier is or where to obtain one (presumably from the pages sibling). Beyond the implicit notion of "a page," the description adds no meaning over the raw integer type.

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: inspect a page to surface its current tool summaries and revision number. It also clarifies scope by noting that full schemas live elsewhere, which helps separate it from describe_tool, but it never names the sibling tools (describe_tool, visit_page, pages) so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

"Reinspect after navigation, route or registration changes" gives a concrete trigger for re-invocation, which is the main usage question for a cached-inspection tool. It offers no explicit when-not or named alternative, so the routing decision against describe_tool/visit_page is only implied by "Full schemas are fetched separately."

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