cascadeur_inspect_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds that it exposes 'actual signatures,' which is a behavioral detail, but it does not clarify what the output looks like or how the optional path affects behavior.

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 one concise sentence plus a second benefit-focused sentence. It front-loads the core action and avoids filler, though it is slightly too terse to fully resolve ambiguity around 'discovered' and 'public attribute path.'

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain the 'editor' parameter, the expected return structure, or how path traversal works. The annotations cover safety, but an agent lacks enough context to reliably invoke this tool with the right arguments.

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 compensate. It explains 'name' as a tool/editor and 'path' as an optional public attribute path, which adds some meaning. However, the 'editor' boolean parameter is not explained at all, and the exact format of the path or how it interacts with the tool is left to inference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and identifies the resource ('a discovered tool/editor') plus the optional attribute path. It also states the benefit ('Exposes actual signatures for advanced scripts'), which helps distinguish it from a generic inspection tool. However, 'discovered' is somewhat vague and the distinction from the sibling cascadeur_inspect_api is not explicit.

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 'for advanced scripts' implies when it might be useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like cascadeur_inspect_api. No triggers, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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