inspect_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the non-destructive behavior: 'WITHOUT building anything.' This is an important behavioral trait that prevents the agent from expecting side effects. It does not mention permissions or error scenarios, but for a list operation, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediate clarification of its non-destructive nature. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it expects, and when to use it. It does not detail the exact structure of the returned list, but the phrase 'parts and detected head-state families' offers a reasonable expectation of the output content.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter ('source'). The description compensates by specifying that the source is a '.psd or PhotoshopToSpine export folder', giving the agent an understanding of acceptable input values. It does not go into format details (e.g., path vs. URL), but it provides meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('.psd or PhotoshopToSpine export folder') and the output ('parts and detected head-state families'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it does this 'WITHOUT building anything' and is meant for confirming what will be rigged.

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 usage context: 'Use this first to confirm what will be rigged.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary language.

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