Inspect Template Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds specific inspection scope (native structure, tags, fallback risk) and the timing context, providing meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding: 'native structure, tags, and fallback risk before instantiation.'

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and inspection scope. It might benefit from mentioning the relationship to instantiate_template_native or analyze_doc_fidelity, but it is complete enough for a read-only inspection 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond implying templateDocId via 'template doc.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' with a clear object: 'a template doc's native structure, tags, and fallback risk before instantiation.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like instantiate_template_native and analyze_doc_fidelity by emphasizing pre-instantiation inspection.

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 phrase 'before instantiation' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The timing cue is useful, though it could be more explicit about not using get_doc/read_doc for this purpose.

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