raw_inventory

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only nature and what data it returns ('as collected'). It also implies no side effects by calling it 'raw read-only inventory'. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the behavior.

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 three sentences with minimal waste. It could be slightly tightened by removing 'power users' parenthetical, but it remains clear and front-loaded.

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?

Given no parameters, an output schema exists, and low complexity, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps identified.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline is 4, and the description does not miss anything in this dimension.

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 explicitly states 'Return the raw read-only inventory' with a clear verb and resource. It lists the specific contents (processes, launchd jobs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'watchcheck' by emphasizing 'NO matching' for power users.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'investigate something watchcheck didn't recognize' or 'gather artifacts for a new signature contribution.' This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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