introspect

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

With no annotations, the description explains the tool's read-only nature, return content (signature, docstring, members), and special trailing dot behavior. It omits error handling or performance notes, but is sufficiently transparent for a simple introspection 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 a single structured paragraph with examples, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently conveys key details, though could be slightly condensed without losing clarity.

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 mentions return values (signature, docstring, members) and the trailing dot completion feature. It does not address error cases or overlap with 'inspect_expr', but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'target' with examples of static paths and live expressions, and 'live' boolean clarifying its effect. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 introspects code or live objects and returns signature, docstring, and members, with distinct static/live modes and trailing dot behavior. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'inspect_expr', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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 context on when to use static vs live mode and mentions trailing dot for completions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'inspect_expr' or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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