inspect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: 'projects the result to save tokens,' 'bypass distillation,' and 'strip default values before transfer.' These describe data processing traits that affect the output and resource usage, providing value over the annotation alone.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a parameter-by-parameter notation that is immediately scannable. There is no filler text; every phrase adds necessary information.

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?

With six optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough detail to invoke the tool correctly for a variety of use cases. It covers all parameters, their defaults, and behavioral nuances, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage (all parameters lack descriptions), but the tool description meticulously explains every parameter: paths (comma-separated), components (comma-separated types, default all), find_type (auto-populates paths), fields (projection for token savings), full (bypass distillation), and compress (strip defaults). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Get components for multiple objects at once,' which clearly states the verb (Get), resource (components), and scope (multiple objects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component, which likely targets a single object, and get_hierarchy, which focuses on hierarchy structure.

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 phrase 'for multiple objects at once' implies a batch use case, and the explanation of find_type vs paths gives guidance on parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for a single component use get_component) or provide alternative tool names, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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