inspect_need

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals a read-style drill-down that returns exact evidence spans and contradictory evidence, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, what happens with an unknown need_id, or how large the returned cluster can be. With no annotations and only partial disclosure, this sits at the minimum-viable level.

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 no filler; the verb and the returned artifacts come first. Nothing in it is redundant or padding.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description's enumeration of outputs is roughly sufficient. However, for a two-parameter lookup tool the total absence of parameter explanation and of any routing guidance leaves meaningful gaps.

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% for both required parameters, so nothing in the schema explains run_id or need_id. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent to guess that run_id scopes a research run and need_id selects a cluster within it.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Inspect) with a specific resource (a complete need cluster) and enumerates what it surfaces: evidence spans, metrics, contradictory evidence. This distinguishes it reasonably from find_needs (discovery) and compare_needs (comparison), though it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as find_needs, get_evidence, or compare_needs. The agent must infer that this is a post-discovery deep-dive keyed on a run_id and need_id, and that inference is not supported by any text in the description.

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