inspect_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states that the tool does not return file contents, but omits details on what it does return (e.g., metadata, existence check) and whether there are any side effects or required permissions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a critical constraint.

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) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description provides basic differentiation but lacks enough detail for full contextual completeness. It doesn't explain the return format or how the tool integrates with other workspace tools, which is necessary for agents to use it effectively without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'allowed workspace file' but does not elaborate on the 'path' parameter's format, constraints, or relationship to workspace roots. The parameter's purpose is implied but not explicitly clarified beyond the schema's minimal field name.

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 specifies the verb 'inspect' and the resource 'workspace file', and adds the key constraint 'without returning contents', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_text'. This is specific and helps the agent understand the tool's unique purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies that for content retrieval one should use 'read_text', there is no direct guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use 'inspect_file'.

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