List inspections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are newest first, and it lists the exact fields returned, including status values like Draft, Pass, Fail, and Re-Inspect.

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 reasonably compact and front-loads the resource, but the opening fragment 'Inspections with project, type, date, result, agency and permit number' largely duplicates the field list that follows in the next sentence. This redundancy weakens conciseness without making the description unclear.

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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields, ordering, and filtering behavior. It does not explain pagination or limit defaults in prose, but cursor is documented in the schema and the remaining schema coverage is high enough to support correct invocation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents cursor, search, and project_id. The description adds the phrase 'Filter by project or search,' which aligns with those parameters but does not add detail beyond the schema, and it does not clarify limit or cursor pagination behavior. A baseline 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 a specific read operation on the inspections list and enumerates the returned fields, including status values and ordering. It is distinguishable from get_inspection by the repeated 'list' framing and filtering, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 'Reads the Contractor Foreman Inspections list' and 'Filter by project or search,' which tells the agent how to narrow the list. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over get_inspection or other inspection-related siblings, nor does it provide exclusions.

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