Inspect Strategy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral trait that no import occurs, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose what 'metadata' includes, whether expected_source_hash affects behavior, or what happens if the hash mismatches. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the key non-import behavior is stated immediately. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. However, with 0% parameter coverage and a non-obvious optional parameter (expected_source_hash), the description leaves a meaningful gap: an agent cannot tell what the hash is for or when to provide it. For a read-only inspection tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It does not explain strategy_id beyond its name, and expected_source_hash is entirely unexplained—an agent cannot know its purpose or whether it is required for verification. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('bundled or source-attached strategy metadata') and clarifies that it does not import the strategy. This distinguishes it from import-like operations, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The phrase 'without importing it' adds useful scope.

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: when you need to inspect metadata without importing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many siblings (e.g., get_strategy_draft, validate_strategy_spec). The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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