cavalry_inspect

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. "Inspect" and "summaries" correctly signal a non-mutating, read-only operation and pre-declare the returned fields (id/name/niceName/type), but nothing is said about permissions, cost, or behavior when nothing is selected or no composition is active.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned payload, with the scope qualifier at the end. No filler and nothing that could be cut.

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-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description names the exact fields returned and the two scopes it can inspect, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the empty-selection/no-active-composition edge case is unaddressed.

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%, but the single parameter is an enum whose two values are explicitly mapped by the phrase "selection or active composition roots," so an agent can choose the default or override with intent. The description effectively compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 (Inspect) and resource (compact layer id/name/niceName/type summaries) plus the scope it operates on (selection or active composition roots). It implicitly separates itself from cavalry_run_script and cavalry_run_preset, which execute things rather than read layer metadata, though it never names those siblings.

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?

"for the selection or active composition roots" implies the situations where the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no direct routing to or away from cavalry_run_script and cavalry_run_preset. Usage has to be inferred from the scope phrase.

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