td_pop_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Read' is consistent with these annotations. It does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of potential performance impact of sampling, or that it only inspects rather than modifies). Since annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide usage context. However, given the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description is functionally complete for a simple read operation, though it could be more informative about typical sampling scenarios.

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 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema. With full schema documentation, the description's lack of parameter elaboration is acceptable, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Read structured POP metadata and attribute samples' clearly states the tool's action (read) and resource (POP metadata and attribute samples). The name td_pop_inspect reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling inspection tools like td_geometry_data or td_chop_data by specifying POP nodes, though not explicitly differentiating 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisite node types or use cases. The sibling list includes many other inspection and data tools, but the description does not help an agent choose between them.

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