get_inspection_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the payload is 'cached' (potentially stale) and the patch suggestions are capped at three.

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 tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the action and the returned content, with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies what is missing: what the payload is, how it is keyed, and that results are bounded.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, but the phrase 'by exact ID' clarifies that inspection_id is an exact identifier rather than a name or search term. That partially compensates for the undocumented schema field, but format/constraints remain unstated.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource ('cached AI explanation and up to three suggested patch locations'), and a keying mode ('by exact ID'). It is clearly distinct from the list_* siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'By exact ID' implies the agent must already possess an inspection_id (presumably from list_inspections), but the description never states that prerequisite or when this tool should be preferred over the list tools. Usage is only inferable.

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