rolldev_inspector_service

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

With no annotations supplied, the description still proactively declares 'Read-only: never changes the environment' — exactly the safety signal an agent needs before invoking. It does not cover output shape, log-file behavior, or failure modes, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the action comes first and the read-only guarantee is front-loaded in a single clause. Nothing to trim.

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 four-parameter diagnostic tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: what 'health' vs 'info' actually return, that project_path must point at a directory containing .env.roll, and how it relates to rolldev_inspector_overview are all left to inference.

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% with two enums fully enumerated, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes the health/info split ('Health or info') and adds nothing about kind selection, project_path (.env.roll) resolution, or the save_output_to_file 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 specific verb+resource: return health or info for one Inspector service adapter. The enum kinds (varnish/redis/search/rabbitmq) and the 'one ... adapter' scope let an agent tell it apart from the aggregate inspector_overview. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it isn't a 5.

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: 'one Inspector service adapter' suggests per-service inspection versus the broader overview/traces/hotspots siblings, but the description never says when to choose this tool over those. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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