inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that `code` is omitted for revisions not produced by `edit`, warns that past code contains patterns not block ids (which are session-scoped), and explains the `origin` field. This is substantial behavioral context that helps the agent avoid misuse. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but the nature of 'read' implies no 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed: purpose, usage, return format, and an important warning about block ids. Each sentence adds value, and the warning is crucial. It is slightly long but not wasteful.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, what it returns, and important limitations. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without further assumptions. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema already describes the single parameter ('Revision id to inspect.') with 100% coverage. The description adds context by linking it to 'history' (implying the id comes from there) and by explaining what the revision represents. This is enough to meet the baseline for high schema coverage, though it could have elaborated on id format or how to obtain it.

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 action ('Read one revision in full') and the resource (a revision), and enumerates exactly what is returned. It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'history' tool by specifying that it is used after picking a revision from history, making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this after `history` when you've picked a revision'. It also explains the distinction between the code (precise operation) and note (agent's summary), providing clear context for selection among siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough.

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