kodi_manager_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the mild contextual fact that it inspects 'saved' state, and says nothing about auth needs, scope limits, or what a health/fix inspection actually reports. With rich annotations the lower bar applies, so a baseline 3 fits.

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?

A single compact sentence, which is good, but it is front-loaded with noise ('Optional Kodi Manager 0.3.9:') that does not help selection and crowds out the actual scope 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and there is only one enum parameter. However, for a five-way inspection tool sitting among many kodi_* siblings, an agent still lacks guidance on what each area inspects and when to prefer this over kodi_status or kodi_layout_preview.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It partially compensates by naming hubs/rows, sources, pipeline, health and fix status, but the mapping to enum values is loose ('fixes' vs 'fix status', 'layout' vs 'Bingie hubs/rows') and no meaning is given for what each area returns or which to choose.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and enumerates the resources covered (Bingie hubs/rows, sources, pipeline, health, fix status), which aligns with the area enum. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from look-alike siblings such as kodi_status or kodi_layout_preview.

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 only hint is the word 'Optional' and an implicit list of areas; there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus kodi_status, kodi_layout_preview, or kodi_browse, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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