carrel_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned metadata fields, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires filesystem permissions, or what happens when deep/exiftool is unavailable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the key return fields with zero wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple inspection 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so by enumerating the main metadata fields and per-type detail. It leaves out deep/exiftool behavior, which the schema covers, and omits any read-only safety statement, but is largely complete for this tool.

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 path, root, and deep are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the general metadata mention, so baseline 3 applies.

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-resource pair: retrieving metadata for one file, and enumerates the returned fields (type, size, mtime, sha256, mime, per-type detail). That clearly distinguishes it from bulk or search-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from carrel_meta.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Metadata for one file', so an agent can infer this is the per-file inspection tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as carrel_meta or carrel_search.

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