hair.inspect

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description's 'Risk: read' merely restates that safety profile without adding meaningful behavior. The only new information, maturity L3 and remaining session requirements, is contextual rather than behavioral. No contradiction exists, but the description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 text is short and uncluttered, but this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It front-loads the command name but devotes no space to the tool's actual function. A concise, useful description would still require a purpose statement.

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 annotations and an output schema cover safety and return structure, the description leaves the core operation undefined. With six optional parameters, no required fields, and a large sibling list, the agent cannot determine what hair.inspect inspects, what it expects, or when to call it. The description is too incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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 50%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning, especially for `name`, `objectId`, and `_expectedSceneRevision`, which lack schema descriptions. The sentence about argument checks is generic and does not clarify which arguments are valid or how they affect the inspection. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 consists almost entirely of the command name `hair.inspect` plus harness context, which restates the title rather than explaining what the tool does. It omits a verb-resource statement like 'Inspect hair curve data' and gives no indication of what is returned or inspected. This is effectively a tautology, so it cannot help an agent distinguish it from other inspection 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'per-request argument checks and session policy' is procedural, not usage guidance. The agent is left to infer context from the command name alone.

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