cascadeur_inspect_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it promises to read the live API without executing methods, which clarifies the safety profile and distinguishes live introspection from stale stubs. This is valuable extra transparency for an inspection tool.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a clear preference directive. Every word earns its place.

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?

The core purpose and safety profile are clear, and annotations cover mutation concerns. However, the tool has no output schema and no parameter descriptions, so the agent does not know how to construct 'path' or what the result format looks like. The sibling 'cascadeur_inspect_tool' is also left undifferentiated, leaving some selection and invocation details unresolved.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters: 'path', 'root', or 'limit'. The enum values for 'root' are visible but their meaning is not clarified, and 'path' is entirely ambiguous without an example or format hint. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Read live Python API member names/signatures/docs without executing methods.' This is much more specific than a tautology and conveys the tool's introspection purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'cascadeur_inspect_tool', so it misses the clearest possible sibling distinction.

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 'Prefer this over guessing from stale stubs' gives a clear usage context: use this tool when you need authoritative, current API information rather than relying on memory or outdated documentation. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent's initial choice.

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