patterncopy inspect

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the 20 MiB limit, RapidAPI/NAS routing, plan allowance consumption, single request with no retries, original preservation, new-file result saving, and untrusted artifact handling. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers on limits, consent, network behavior, side effects, and security cautions. It is dense but largely earns its length; a few points, such as 'supported-profile preflight,' are jargon-heavy and could be tighter.

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 no output schema, the description covers most behavioral and safety-relevant context, including file preservation and new-file result saving. It could be more explicit about the returned artifact format or the exact metadata returned, but an agent has enough to call it 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 description coverage is 50%, and the description adds useful file constraints such as 'local supported PDF up to 20 MiB.' The consent parameter is already fully described in the schema, and the description adds little beyond repeating the consent requirement.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspecting a local supported PDF for page/layer/form metadata. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling action by saying 'without stamping it,' making the purpose clear without opening the schema.

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?

It provides clear context as a supported-profile preflight and explicitly excludes independent visual certification. However, it does not explicitly name patterncopy_stamp or other siblings as the alternative when actual stamping is needed.

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