inspect_producer_return_bus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add real value beyond that: it clarifies that pluginId verifies loaded identity and explicitly NOT preset or sound, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary. It stops short of describing what a mismatch produces or return shape.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what is read before the optional-parameter caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is information-packed and slightly hard to parse on first read.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description lists the inspection surface (FX order, children, sends, routing), which is helpful. However it never describes what the tool returns or what happens when the blueprint does not match, which is the core question for a verification tool.

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 67%, so the schema handles most parameters. The description nonetheless adds semantics the enum alone cannot convey: that pluginId is optional, overrides the blueprint's factory instrument, and only asserts loaded identity. target and children/role semantics remain schema-only, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 (Read) and resource (Return bus) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: ordered FX, child sources, sends and Sends Only routing, scoped against a layered blueprint. This distinguishes it functionally from inspect_producer_chain and inspect_producer_bus, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 implies the tool is used to verify an already-existing Return bus against a blueprint, but it offers no explicit when-to-use statement versus the sibling inspect_producer_* tools or prerequisites (e.g. must the bus already exist?). Usage is only inferable from the phrasing.

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