Inspect COMP extensions, storage, and custom parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it notes return data is 'structured data for agent code-path consumption,' explains that 'API names vary by TD build,' and introduces the 'probe' field as a record of reachable attributes. This openly addresses the open-world variability hinted at by openWorldHint.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the key safety qualifier 'Read-only', then listing the three inspection targets. Every sentence earns its place: usage guidance, return format, and API-variability caveat. No fluff or repetition.

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 four parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it (in the component-creation loop), what it returns, and the 'probe' fallback for varying API names. The output schema handles detailed return fields, so no further elaboration is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter comments, so the baseline is 3. The description restates some content (e.g., 'custom-parameter definitions (page/name/style/default)') but does not add new semantics about the path parameter or boolean flags beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of the 'probe' field concerns output, not parameters.

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 ('a COMP'), then specifies exactly what is inspected: Python storage dict, extension class descriptors, and custom-parameter definitions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_component_manifest or get_td_node_parameters by enumerating unique inspection targets.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use after scaffold_extension + add_custom_parameters to verify what was built, or call standalone to examine any COMP without resorting to raw Python.' It does not name specific alternative sibling tools for exclusion, but the usage context and the 'without raw Python' note clarify positioning.

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