chaprola_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the explicit return details (field names, positions, lengths, types, PHI flags) give transparency about the output. It does not mention potential side effects or permissions, but the inspection nature is clear.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, both documented) and the description explains the return values. Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the output fields. It does not cover edge cases or error behavior, but for an inspection tool this is adequate.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (project and name), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool inspects a data file's schema and lists the specific return items (field names, positions, lengths, types, PHI flags). It uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('data file's schema'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chaprola_list or chaprola_fetch.

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 usage: you would use this tool when you need to inspect a data file's schema. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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