inspect_pkt

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It usefully conveys that the operation is offline and expects an existing file, implying read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly state that the file is not modified, what the summary contains, or how failures are handled.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action, input, and result are all front-loaded and clearly stated.

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?

For a one-parameter inspection tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the input type, the operation, the offline nature, and the kind of output. It lacks explicit usage guidance and a non-mutation guarantee, but the simple scope keeps the gap small.

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?

The schema's only parameter, 'path', has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying that the path must point to an existing .pkt or .pka file, adding meaningful constraints beyond the bare parameter name.

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 ('Parse') and names the exact resource ('existing .pkt or .pka file') and the result ('readable summary'). The 'offline' qualifier helps distinguish it from generation-oriented siblings like generate_pkt.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use inspect_pkt versus sibling tools such as generate_pkt or validate_current_topology. It states the tool's capability but not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it.

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