texture_inspect

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does signal that this is a derived-metadata computation rather than a mutation or file operation. However, it never states that the tool is side-effect-free, what 'completeness' is measured against, or how results are returned, leaving meaningful gaps 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 with the computed outputs in parentheses; nothing is redundant or padded. It is perhaps slightly too terse for the amount of behavior it must cover, but the structure itself is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's partial enumeration of returned fields (format, size, required buffer bytes, completeness) is doing real work, but 'completeness' is left undefined and the role of availableBytes versus required bytes is unexplained. For a six-parameter computational tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so each parameter already has its own description including the formatCode and sizeCode value tables, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates four of the six inputs and hints that availableBytes feeds the 'required buffer bytes' and 'completeness' calculations, but adds no new meaning and ignores the optional paletteEntries parameter entirely.

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 ('Calculate') and a specific resource ('N64 texture metadata') and enumerates the computed outputs (format, size, required buffer bytes, completeness), which distinguishes it from decoding siblings like texture_decode_n64 or texture_analyze_palette. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as texture_analyze_palette or texture_decode_n64. The phrase 'based on format code, size code, width and height' describes inputs, not the situation in which the tool should be chosen.

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