Inspect Mogrt Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds more specific behavioral context by stating the tool never reads MOGRT contents or changes the library, and that it is bounded to top-level listing. This is consistent with the annotations and provides meaningful extra detail beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second clarifies non-destructive and non-content-reading behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repeating the title or schema.

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 listing tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description provides the key prerequisites and behavioral boundaries needed for correct invocation. The phrase 'bounded top-level' is slightly ambiguous, but the output schema likely clarifies the returned structure, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both parameters already described as 'existing workspace-contained local library root' and 'absolute operator-approved workspace root'. The tool description reinforces the workspace-contained and existing constraints but does not add parameter-specific syntax, formatting, or additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('List bounded top-level template names and version directories') on a specific resource (workspace-contained local MOGRT library). It distinguishes the tool from import/preview/publish MOGRT siblings by emphasizing that it never reads MOGRT contents or changes the library, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 supplies clear contextual guidance: it applies to an existing workspace-contained library and is appropriate when only top-level template names and version directories are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'never reads MOGRT contents or changes the library' phrasing implies exclusions for content inspection or mutation workflows.

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