inspect_build_site

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 does signal that this is a read-only pre-mutation check, which is meaningful safety context, but says nothing about what the inspection reports, any limits, or failure behavior. With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, keeping this at a middling 3.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing borders on cryptic rather than fully informative.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there is only one simple parameter, so the burden is low. Still, the description never clarifies what a 'build site candidate' is or what the radius measures, which for a solo-purpose tool leaves a small but real gap.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'By radius' only loosely maps to the radius argument and gives no units, format, or meaning for what the radius bounds.

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 gives a verb (inspect) and a resource (build site candidate) scoped by radius, which is more specific than a tautology. However, 'inspect' is left undefined and no sibling is distinguished (e.g. preview_build_plan), so an agent cannot tell exactly what this check covers versus related tools.

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 any mutation' implies a precondition/timing for use, which is useful guidance. But it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not condition, leaving the routing decision largely implied.

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