decomp_config_inspect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the file is modified, how errors are surfaced for a missing or malformed file, or what the inspection returns. Listing the extracted entities (functions, segments, symbols) is the only behavioral hint, and it is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the target, the accepted formats, and the extracted content with no wasted wording.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states what it reads and what it extracts, which is adequate. But with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks the read-only guarantee and the shape of the result, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely enriches this by naming the accepted file formats (YAML, JSON, splat), which mildly adds meaning to what a valid path might contain.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('decompilation configuration file'), and enumerates the supported formats (YAML, JSON, splat) plus what is extracted (functions, segments, symbols). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling decomp_config_validate, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus decomp_config_validate, decomp_config_propose_changes, or decomp_config_apply_changes, nor any stated prerequisites. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only action, but the agent is left to infer the division of labor among the four config siblings.

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