corpus_inventory

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 lists the scope of output contents but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool that appears to be a read-only diagnostic.

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 concise line that front-loads the primary purpose ('Full inventory') and then enumerates the specific aspects covered. Every phrase adds informational value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values. However, the presence of many sibling tools (corpus_status, coverage_report, etc.) creates a need for usage context that is missing. The description is minimally viable for a simple inventory tool but lacks guidance on when to choose this over other status/summary tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly omits any parameter details, and the empty input schema confirms no parameters need explanation.

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 provides a full inventory of corpus characteristics (layout type, partitions, CSV/JSONL, capabilities, gaps). The verb is implied via the noun 'inventory' but the colon effectively indicates the tool returns this information. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like corpus_status or coverage_report, which offer similar summary functions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Full inventory' hints at a comprehensive overview, but there is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or when a more targeted tool would be appropriate. Given the large set of siblings, this is a significant gap.

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