inspect_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('without compiling or exploring') and lists the returned fields. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only inspection tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first clearly states the action and caveats, the second lists the return fields. No unnecessary words, and key info is front-loaded.

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?

Considering the tool has 4 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the return value comprehensively (listing 7 components) and how to get an overview vs. drill-down. It is largely complete for the tool's purpose.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by relating the 'section' parameter to 'bounded overview', and implies that omitting section gives an overview. This extra context elevates the score.

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 the specific verb 'inspect' and clearly identifies the resource as an 'Ink project from source'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compile_story by explicitly stating 'without compiling or exploring it', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (for inspection before compiling/exploring) and mentions 'recommended next operation', but does not explicitly contrast with each sibling or state when not to use it. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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