Inspect

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses key operational traits such as automatic path population via find_type, field projection to save tokens, distillation bypass with full=True, and compression stripping default values. These go well beyond the annotation and materially inform the agent.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows with terse, information-dense parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the return structure, but it adequately covers all parameters, behaviors, and defaults needed for correct invocation. The operational context (batch read, token saving, compression) is well handled, so the minor lack of return-shape detail costs a point.

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?

Although the schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful usage semantics: it explains comma-separated formats, defaults ('default: all'), interaction between find_type and paths, and the purpose of fields/compress (token and size reduction). This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_component by emphasizing support for multiple objects, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 a batch inspection use case ('multiple objects at once') and explains parameter choices, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude scenarios. This is clear context without formal when/when-not guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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