path_inspector

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

The term 'inspect' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, no details are given about what 'critical dev tools' includes, potential side effects, or output format. The lack of annotations increases the burden on the description, which is partially met.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's scope. It could be more specific about which dev tools are checked, but it remains functional for a simple inspection 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds context beyond the schema (which is empty) by explaining the tool's purpose, which is sufficient for parameterless invocation.

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 states the tool inspects 'system PATH and critical dev tools versions', providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'system_info' (broader) or 'inspect_docker' (Docker-specific).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'system_info' or 'inspect_runtimes'. The sibling list is present but not referenced.

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