corpus_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return (counts plus a full passage list) and its honesty/coverage intent, but says nothing about cost, size of the passage list, or read-only nature beyond implication. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the intended use. No filler or repetition, though the phrasing is slightly colloquial.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must describe returns, and it does so reasonably: counts by source and grading, review status, and passage list. That is sufficient for a simple read-only inventory 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 names a specific resource (the corpus) and enumerates what it reports: counts by source and grading, review status, and the full passage list. This is clearly distinct from answer_question, search_corpus, and get_passage, though it never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the boundary against list_gaps.

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?

"Use this to answer coverage questions honestly" gives one implied trigger, but there are no exclusions or stated alternatives — the agent must infer that search_corpus or list_gaps are not the right picks for coverage questions.

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