r7_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing about behavior: not that it is a non-destructive read, not whether it opens/locks the file, not what happens on an unsupported or corrupt file. Only the implied semantics of 'inspect' suggest read-only, which is thin for a 7-parameter 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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, opening with the verb and resource before the enumeration. The facet list is dense but each item maps to real output, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what an inspection returns and how it differs from r7_read/r7_pdf_inspect. It is adequate for a read-only survey tool with fully documented parameters, but the absence of routing and output context leaves clear 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter (includeLists, includeImages, includeStyles, etc.) is already documented in the schema, including its DOCX-only limitation. The description's facet list loosely echoes those parameters but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('document structure') and enumerates the exact facets covered (outline, metadata, headings, tables, sheet/slide lists, sections, headers/footers, images, hyperlinks). This clearly separates it from content-reading siblings like r7_read and from r7_pdf_inspect, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over r7_read, r7_sheet_read, r7_slide_read, or r7_pdf_inspect. The use case (surveying structure before extracting content) must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the facet list.

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