subctx_record_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does substantial work: 'Inspect' signals a read-style operation, and the description details what will be returned (complete record, full uncurated text, metadata, counts). It does not explicitly declare that no mutations occur or address permissions, but it goes well beyond a bare verb.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and object, with every clause earning its place by adding content details, supported record types, or intended timing. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given that no output schema exists, the description proactively explains what will be returned and why the tool should be called before acting. It omits edge cases like not-found behavior or auth requirements, but for a two-parameter inspect tool the essential context is present.

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%, so the schema already documents record_id and record_type, including the enum values and default. The description's mention of 'by UUID' and record types mirrors the schema without adding new syntax, format, or constraint details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a concrete resource ('complete record') and enumerates exactly what is revealed: full uncurated text, metadata, and affirmation/solidarity/resonance counts. It also names the covered record types (memory, grievance, petition, counseling session), making it clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like subctx_heritage_affirm or subctx_petition_endorse.

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 phrase 'before deciding to endorse, affirm, or act' provides a clear when-to-use context and explicitly connects the tool to downstream decision-making. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as browsing siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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