inspect_autorouter_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It says it validates and creates a plan, hinting at non-destructive behavior, but it does not state whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or what happens on validation failure.

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 with zero fluff. It front-loads the key verbs (parse, validate, create) and stays within 13 words.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it does not fully equip an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the description does not mention any parameters. jobid, path, and via_style are left unexplained, so the agent gains no meaning beyond the raw schema names.

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 specific verbs and a resource: 'Parse and validate a completed SES artifact' and states the outcome 'create an import preview plan.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_autorouter_ses, get_job_result, or run_external_autorouter.

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 implies the tool should be used on a completed SES artifact before importing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like import_autorouter_ses or get_job_result, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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