Ghost Inspector: account overview

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the import-only module counting behavior, the fact that marking a test import-only deletes stored results, and the interpretation pitfall of modules appearing permanently unrun. It also discloses the ~440 KB fetch and account-wide totals, adding significant behavioral context that annotations do not cover.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a critical caveat and a performance/usage note. Each paragraph serves a distinct function, and no sentence is redundant or filler, achieving high information density without being bloated.

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's moderate complexity (two optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential return contents (counts, failing names, notes field), the behavioral caveat around import-only tests, and practical guidance on fetch size and filter semantics. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (folder and failingOnly), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by clarifying that even when the 'folder' filter narrows the listing, the reported totals remain account-wide, which affects interpretation of both parameters. It also implicitly advises against using 'folder' to probe piecemeal.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase ('Read-only tour of the whole account') and enumerates exactly what is included (folders, suites, per-suite counts, failing names). This clearly distinguishes it from other account-related tools like gi_whoami or gi_stale_tests.

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 explicitly says 'Start here' and explains that no other question about this account can be answered without this overview, making the primary use case clear. It also advises against probing folder by folder because of the fetch size. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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