inspect_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a non-destructive inspection ('WITHOUT building anything'), but adds nothing about permissions, side effects, or output format.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the capstone constraint (no building) and the sequencing advice are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more. It conveys what gets listed and when to call it, but leaves source_group and the return shape 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only indirectly clarifies 'source' (accepts a .psd file or an export folder) and says nothing about 'source_group' or its default. The second parameter is effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (parts and detected head-state families) and scopes it to .psd or PhotoshopToSpine export folders. Distinguishes itself from build-oriented siblings via 'WITHOUT building anything', though it doesn't name the specific alternative tool.

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?

'Use this first to confirm what will be rigged' gives clear sequencing guidance and an implied alternative (build/rig later). It stops short of explicitly naming rig_and_animate or build_workflow as the follow-up.

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