jev_inspect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that no model call is made, that output is compact by default, and that refs become stale when the page changes. These are valuable behavioral traits that an agent needs to know and are not inferable from the schema or annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each packed with information: purpose, default behavior, parameter usage, and a warning. No filler. The key differentiator ('no model call') is front-loaded, and the warning about stale refs is placed at the end as a natural caveat.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, how to get targets and screenshots, and the lifecycle caveat about refs. The schema handles parameter bounds (offset max 1000) and defaults. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 add meaning. It does so for three of the four parameters: 'offset' is implied by 'use nextOffset to page through targets' (though the name mismatch could confuse), 'targets' is explained as 'only when taking over', and 'screenshot' as 'Request screenshot explicitly'. sessionId is self-evident from the parameter name and format. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions, but the 'nextOffset' wording introduces a slight inconsistency with the actual parameter name.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a retained session') and immediately clarifies a key distinction: 'no model call'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like jev_act or jev_continue. The phrase 'retained session' makes the target unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear conditions for optional parameters: 'Request targets only when taking over' and 'Request screenshot explicitly'. It also gives a pagination hint with 'use nextOffset to page through targets' and warns about stale refs. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer this over jev_explore or jev_continue, so the guidance is context-specific rather than comparative.

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