list_inspections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so the safety story is covered. The description adds that results are a discovery seed for a later context call, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or total-count semantics that matter for a list tool.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the discovery purpose front-loaded and the downstream dependency trailing. No waste, though it is arguably too terse for the information it leaves out.

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-value shape need not be described. However, for a paginated list tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any statement about limit/offset, ordering, or expected volume leaves a real gap an agent would hit when results exceed the default limit of 20.

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% and the description never mentions limit or offset, even though pagination is the main behavioral concern for this tool. With two undocumented parameters and no compensating text, the agent must infer paging from names alone.

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 ('Discover') and resource ('persisted inspection IDs'), which tells the agent this is an enumeration tool that yields IDs rather than full records. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_inspection_context by positioning itself as the ID-discovery step, though it never names the sibling 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?

'before requesting their cached context' gives explicit sequencing guidance that routes the agent to call this before get_inspection_context. It gives a clear context of use but offers no exclusions or detail on when this is unnecessary (e.g., if IDs are already known).

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