rolldev_inspector_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavior, and it does disclose the key trait: 'Read-only: never changes the environment', which is genuinely useful safety context. It also hints at the payload (Varnish result, why it missed, lanes), but omits what happens when no entry matches, whether the project must be running, and any volume/pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 short sentences, the payload summary front-loaded before the safety note, with no filler. The phrasings 'why it missed' and 'lanes' are slightly jargon-dependent but compact rather than redundant.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about return shape and preconditions. It covers the content categories returned and the read-only nature, but leaves the relationship to the other inspector tools and the environment prerequisites unstated.

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 every parameter (url, xid, limit, project_path, save_output_to_file) is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that lookup is by URL or an exact Varnish XID match; it adds nothing on limit, project_path resolution or the file-saving preview behavior.

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?

States a concrete resource (a per-request timeline entry keyed on a URL) and enumerates what it contains: Varnish result plus the PHP, cache, search and queue lanes. That is more specific than a generic 'inspect' tool and differentiates it from rolldev_inspector_overview/traces by its single-request granularity, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: the URL/xid framing suggests 'use when you have a specific request and want its timeline', but the description never says when to prefer this over rolldev_inspector_trace, rolldev_inspector_traces or rolldev_inspector_overview. No prerequisites (e.g. project must be started) or exclusions are given.

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