inspect_sketch_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Inspect' communicates a read-only operation and 'existing' hints at failure modes for invalid selections, but it does not disclose what information is returned or whether any session state is affected. This is partial but insufficient disclosure.

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?

One sentence with no padding; the core verb and object are front-loaded. Every phrase adds a constraint: one, existing, and selection mode.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what an inspection returns, how the three optional parameters interact, or what errors may occur. The tool's call contract is underspecified for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that selection can be by reference, index, or fingerprint, but never maps those modes to the actual parameters (constraint, sketch_ref, document_id) or explains how the optional parameters combine. The agent is left guessing.

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 identifies the action (inspect), the resource (one existing sketch constraint), and the selection modes (reference, index, fingerprint). This distinguishes it from list_sketch_constraints and inspect_sketch_entity without needing to name them explicitly.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sketch_constraints or inspect_sketch_dimension. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints beyond the implication that the constraint must already exist.

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