drawing

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.