inspect_object

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a side-effect-free operation, and the description lists the data scope (properties, links, shape summary), which is useful. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, whether a document must be open, or potential performance costs of computing a shape summary, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 nine-word sentence that front-loads the verb and directly names the output categories. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 existence of an output schema covers return-value details, so the description need not explain those. However, it still lacks usage differentiation from inspect_shape, an explanation of the optional doc_name parameter, and any error or prerequisite context. Without annotations, these omissions prevent an agent from reliably choosing and invoking the tool correctly in all cases.

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 clarify the parameters. It refers generically to 'an object', which maps to object_name, but says nothing about the optional doc_name or how it disambiguates documents. Only the schema's parameter titles provide any semantic anchor.

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 ('Inspect') and a concrete resource ('an object's properties, links, and shape summary'). It implicitly differentiates itself from the sibling 'inspect_shape' by covering properties and links in addition to shape, and from 'list_objects' which merely enumerates objects. The action and scope are immediately clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_shape or list_objects. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are provided. The verb 'inspect' implies a read-only use case, but it does not help an agent decide among inspection siblings.

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