grease_pencil.inspect

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description agrees by saying 'Risk: read'. It adds minor context with 'maturity: L3' and the requirements note, but no additional side-effect, authorization, or return-behavior details.

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 short and front-loaded, but its content is mostly generic harness boilerplate ('Risk: read', 'maturity: L3', 'Requirements'). It is terse rather than efficiently informative because the actual purpose is absent.

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 an output schema and safety annotations, the agent is left without knowing what object is inspected, how `name`/`objectId` select it, or any usage prerequisites. With six optional-looking parameters and a large sibling set, this is incomplete for confident selection and invocation.

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 only 50%, and the user-facing `name` and `objectId` parameters have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain whether either identifier is needed, how they relate, or what happens when both are omitted.

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 mostly restates the command path (`grease_pencil.inspect`) and adds only 'Risk: read'; it never explicitly says what object or data is being inspected. This is closer to a label rather than a real definition and does not differentiate it from sibling grease_pencil or *_inspect tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: the description mentions 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply', but not when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell this apart from other inspect-style tools or grease-pencil tools from the description alone.

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