inspect_export_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that it avoids parsing binary Stata/SPSS data, which is genuinely useful, but it omits the side-effect that the extract parameter can unpack files into output_dir or a sibling folder. The 'inspect' framing could misleadingly suggest a purely read-only operation despite a write-capable extract mode.

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?

A single, dense sentence conveys the tool's purpose, scope, operations, and a key limitation without filler. Every clause earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

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 description covers the main purpose well but is incomplete for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not describe the returned preview/summary structure, and it fails to mention the extract side-effect that writes files, which an agent needs to anticipate before invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description adds general context about listing and sampling metadata, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for extract, output_dir, sample_rows, include_details, or other parameters, matching the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: inspect a downloaded Survey Solutions export zip on the MCP host. It enumerates concrete actions (list files, classify file types, sample metadata) and explicitly excludes binary Stata/SPSS parsing, which distinguishes it from export and download siblings, though it never names 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 implies the tool is for post-download, pre-analysis inspection of a local export zip, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over related tools like download_export_file, export_all_formats, or prepare_latest_export_for_analysis. The context is clear but exclusionary guidance is left to inference.

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