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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it doesn't state that these are read-only/safe inspection operations, whether any call has side effects, or any auth/rate considerations. The odd qualifier 'truthful capability inventory' hints at something meaningful about capability reporting but is never explained.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the three kinds of information available, so there is no wasted text. The phrase 'truthful capability inventory' is slightly cryptic relative to its length, but the sentence is efficient.

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 tool is simple (one enum param) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, the description leaves the read-only/safety character of the operations and the distinction from the sibling 'drawing' tool unstated, which for a no-annotation tool is a gap.

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% and there is one enum parameter, but the enum values are self-explanatory; the description merely restates 'health, version, capabilities'. It adds slight nuance to the 'capabilities' value with 'truthful capability inventory' but no format or selection guidance beyond the enum itself.

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 gives a clear verb ('Inspect') plus the resources it can report on (health, version, capability inventory), which an agent can map directly onto the operation enum. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from its sibling 'drawing' or explain how cad_system relates to drawing work.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tool 'drawing' as an alternative. The only usage signal is the implied match between the three listed nouns and the operation enum, which the schema already carries.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses read-only operation, allowlisted access, and inspection-only scope, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, mutation guarantees, and per-operation behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact, though sparse given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with seven enum operations, four parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description provides only a high-level safety scope. It leaves invocation details and guard-parameter semantics unstated, though an output schema exists so return values need not be explained.

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 0% for four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning: it does not explain the operation enum values, expected_document_id, expected_instance_id, or deadline_ms. It fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('read-only document metadata') with scope ('allowlisted') and the bridge context. It does not differentiate this tool from the sibling cad_system, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'Inspect only allowlisted read-only document metadata' implies a safe read context but does not tell an agent when to select this tool over cad_system or other options.

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