uv.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'Risk: read' and 'maturity: L3', but these are not behavioral traits. It provides no information about side effects, return behavior, or operational constraints beyond what annotations already state.

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, but not concisely informative. Every sentence is metadata rather than functional content. It under-specifies rather than being concise in a meaningful way.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, an output schema, and many UV-related siblings, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't state the purpose, differentiate from alternatives, or explain expected outputs. An agent would have no idea what this tool does or when to use it.

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 description says nothing about the parameters. With 6 parameters and only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining at least the key parameters like 'name' and 'objectId', but it remains silent.

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 only restates the command name 'uv.inspect' and mentions risk and maturity, but never actually states what the tool does. It does not say 'inspects UVs' or anything about its function, so it's essentially a tautology with no informative content.

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 the many UV-related siblings (uv_pack, uv_unwrap, etc.). The only requirement mentioned is session policy, which is not about usage context.

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