whodb_platform_file_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral caveat — suggested mappings are advisory and the platform still validates writes — plus that workspace targeting does not mutate session defaults. Return-shape and pagination behavior remain unstated, but the added caveats exceed annotation coverage.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences each carry distinct value (workflow routing, field preference, write-validation caveat, workspace scoping). It is dense but not padded; the density is appropriate for a five-parameter tool.

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?

With read-only annotations carrying the safety profile, full schema coverage on all five parameters, and no output schema to explain, the description covers the remaining needs: what it does, how it fits before promotion, how to choose fields, and that mappings are non-authoritative. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by prescribing field ordering, the conditional use of include_rows ("only when sample row values are needed"), and the per-call non-persistent nature of workspace, which the schema does not emphasize as strongly.

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 and resource ("Inspect one hosted tabular file") plus the precise output purpose (infer promote-to-dataset column mappings), which separates it from generic preview/list siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming close siblings like whodb_platform_file_preview or whodb_platform_promote_file_to_dataset, so differentiation is inferred from the workflow mention rather than stated.

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?

Gives explicit timing ("Use this before whodb_platform_action with resource 'file' and action 'promote_to_dataset'") and operational guidance on param selection ("Prefer fields such as [columns, columnMapExample, columnMapFlags] first"). It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus file_preview), leaving one inference gap.

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