workflowmoves_outreach_inspect

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call returns a retained background job and that the caller must poll danceflow_job_status. It also clarifies base effect flags and points to danceflow_component for conditional inference/download effects, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 short and front-loads the inspection purpose before covering job behavior and effect flags. It is telegraphic in places, but no sentence is obviously redundant.

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 async job model and polling requirement are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with nested required arguments and permissions flags, the description leaves important input semantics unexplained.

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 only 50%, and the description does not explain the required root, key, or token arguments at all. It adds some meaning around permission effect flags, but that does not compensate for the opaque required argument object.

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 names a specific verb and resource: checking claim ownership and unchanged approved packet bytes without sending. It is distinguishable from the outreach claim/finish siblings by the explicit 'without sending' scope, though it does not name those alternatives directly.

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 gives operational follow-up guidance to poll danceflow_job_status, but it does not say when to use this inspection tool versus outreach_claim, outreach_finish, or outreach_list. Any when-to-use signal is only implied by 'without sending'.

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