bundle_inspect

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation with the explicit statement 'Read-only — never writes pack state,' adding a concrete behavioral guarantee beyond the annotation. It also signals safety for untrusted files, which is valuable context. The openWorldHint is not contradicted.

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 sentences, each packing distinct value: the first describes what the tool does and its output categories, the second provides safety and usage timing. No redundant words; information is front-loaded and scannable.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the key output categories (schema/digest status, origin, records, warnings) and gives safety guarantees and usage timing. For a read-only inspection tool with full annotations and schema, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (path and json) already described clearly in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning—it only mentions 'task bundle file' without elaborating on the path or json flag. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool validates and summarizes task bundle files, listing specific output aspects (schema and digest status, origin, included records, warnings). The verb 'validate and summarize' plus the resource 'task bundle file' precisely defines the action, and the mention of 'untrusted' and 'before planning or applying an import' distinguishes it from sibling tools like bundle_import_plan and bundle_import.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Call before planning or applying an import of a bundle you did not produce.' This gives clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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