inspect_document

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it discloses that opening the file costs the same as read_document but saves context, not time, and that it distinguishes scanned vs text PDFs. It doesn't describe pagination or response size details, but the output schema exists and the safety profile is already covered by annotations, so the added disclosure is meaningful.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose ('본문 없이 구조와 확정 등급만 돌려줍니다'), followed by usage guidance, cost disclosure, args, return types, and examples. Every sentence earns its place – the cost disclosure and the scan-vs-text distinction are critical differentiators that an agent needs. The examples section with explicit 사용/사용하지 않음 cases is particularly efficient.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter read-only inspection tool. The output schema lists the return fields (grade, rationale, title tree, block count, char count, estimated call count, image-required anchors, format metadata), so the description needn't explain return values further. The cost/context tradeoff, the B? resolution flow, and the scan-vs-text distinction are all covered. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single path parameter, including that it must be a relative path from scan_folder or an absolute path within root. The description's Args section adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load and the description repeats it without adding new semantic detail.

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+resource: inspects a document to return only its structure and confirmed grade, without the body text. It clearly differentiates from read_document by emphasizing it is to be called before it, and from scan_folder by explaining that it replaces extension-based 'B?' guesses with a confirmed grade. The purpose cannot be confused with siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions ('read_document 전에 부르세요'), specific use cases with examples (checking page count/TOC before reading a large PDF, resolving a 'B?' from scan_folder), and a clear when-not-to-use case (when body text is needed, use read_document). Alternatives are named directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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