Inspect WebAssembly module

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by noting it's a 'local dependency-free structural parser', indicating no network dependencies and a read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly state error behavior or output format, but the 'inspect' verb implies non-destructive operation.

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 one sentence, entirely front-loaded with the verb and object, listing the key inspected components. No redundant or filler words are present.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and input mechanism generally, and the mention of sections, imports, exports, names, and producers hints at the expected output. Given the absence of an output schema, it could provide more detail on return values or error handling, but for a simple inspection tool it is reasonably complete.

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 2 parameters (inputPath, inputBase64) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters or their relationship, so agents must rely on property names alone. This is a significant gap, as the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as inspecting a WASM module's structural elements (sections, imports, exports, names, producers) using a local dependency-free parser. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like wasm_string_extract, which focus on string extraction.

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 a clear context of what the tool does, implying its use for structural analysis of WASM modules. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other use cases, lacking direct when/when-not guidance.

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