Inspect subscription control-plane state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds significant context: it returns 'safe' metadata and explicitly excludes 'URLs or credentials'. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying what content the tool will and will not expose, which is valuable for an agent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error behavior) are disclosed, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and safety guarantee. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to understanding.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains what the tool returns and what it deliberately excludes, making it complete for this low-complexity 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for explaining parameter meaning. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add or need to add parameter-related details.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Nikki cache metadata and Mihomo provider summaries'), and explicitly notes what is excluded ('without URLs or credentials'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools like inspect_config_state and inspect_flow, which focus on other aspects of state.

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 that this tool is for reviewing subscription-related metadata and provider summaries, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations, so it falls into 'implied usage' rather than clear context or exclusions.

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