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 that embedded images are summarised and that xml=True output is truncated to max_chars, which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'inspect' strongly implies a safe read.

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?

Two tight sentences; the content list is front-loaded and each enumerated item carries information. Slightly dense as a run-on enumeration, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no full explanation, and xml/max_chars behavior is covered. However, with heavy sibling overlap (attributes, text, style, structure, find) and zero schema documentation, the missing routing guidance and undefined ids semantics leave real gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains xml's effect and the max_chars truncation interaction well, but the required ids parameter is never defined — the description says 'specific objects' without stating that ids is a required array of identifiers or its expected format.

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 makes clear this is the comprehensive per-object inspector, enumerating exactly what is retrieved (tag, label, tree position, bounding box, attributes, style, text, children). That scope implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like attributes, text, style, and structure, but it never names them, so differentiation is inferred 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. 'Everything about specific objects' hints at the comprehensive role versus narrower siblings, but an agent must guess whether to call inspect or find/attributes/text for a given need.

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