List Inspection/Test Plans (Dalux Field)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the context that data is listed, consistent with read-only, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 is front-loaded with the main action. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words or extraneous details.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, including paging logic and two enums, the description is quite terse. It does not explain paging behavior or the open-world hint. The schema covers some parameters, but more context on how to use the various parts or handle pagination would improve completeness.

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 60%, but the description adds meaning to the enum parameters 'kind' and 'part' by explaining they correspond to inspection/test plans and their items/zones/registrations. This compensates for missing schema descriptions for these two parameters.

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 clearly specifies the tool lists quality assurance data (inspection or test plans) and their items, item zones, or registrations. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on quality plans.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose inspection vs test or different parts. No context on paging or continuation with pageLink is given.

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