tods_inspect_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only inspection scope and what the summary contains, but says nothing about behavior on invalid/non-TODS feeds, whether it fails or partial-results, performance on large zips, or permissions.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return contents listed compactly afterward.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates what comes back, which is exactly what an agent needs for this single-parameter read tool. Only minor gaps remain around error behavior and large-feed handling.

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 100% for the single feed_path parameter, already documenting that it accepts a local directory or .zip. The description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Inspects a TODS directory or .zip feed') and enumerates the outputs (statistics, table list, supplement counts, crew runs, fleet totals). It is clearly distinguishable from granular getters like tods_get_runs, though it never names validate_feed as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 output list implies this is the overview/first-look tool before drilling into runs or vehicle assignments, but the description never states when to use it instead of tods_validate_feed or the specific getters, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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