inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-like operation ('Read'), but also mentions 'mint a source handle', which suggests creating something (a handle) and may have side effects. The description does not disclose whether this operation is reversible, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The term 'mint' is ambiguous and could mislead an agent about the tool's side effects.

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 sentence of moderate length, conveying the core purpose concisely. It is front-loaded and contains minimal redundancy. However, it could be slightly more compact by removing 'a media file's shape and' since 'Read a file' might suffice.

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 that no output schema is provided, the description should clarify what a 'source handle' is and whether the tool returns it or something else. It also doesn't mention that 'include' is optional or what defaults apply. The tool has 18 siblings with various media actions (draft, splice, verify, etc.), but the description provides no context for how 'inspect' fits with those. The description is incomplete for a tool that mints a handle.

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 input schema already has high coverage (100%) with descriptions for both 'path' (workspace-relative path) and 'include' (extra maps to compute). The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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's purpose: reading a media file's shape and minting a source handle. The verb 'Read' and noun 'media file' are specific, though the term 'shape' is somewhat vague. It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspect' (which is the tool itself) and 'stock', 'sound', 'colour' that likely deal with different aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draft', 'verify', or 'preview'. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions) or exclusions (e.g., unsupported media types). The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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