inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: 'Read-only' (no mutation) and 'Offline' (no network dependency). It says nothing about determinism, input size limits, cost, or what the returned recommendation looks like, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and then lists the report contents in order. Every clause carries information; the only minor cost is the telegraphic 'Offline.' fragment at the end.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned facets (tokens, structure, duplication, cleanup projection, recommendation). Combined with the read-only/offline disclosure, an agent knows enough to invoke it correctly, though the relationship to the cleanup siblings remains unstated.

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?

One parameter ('text') at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema adds nothing; the description compensates only by saying it inspects 'a text', which is obvious from the parameter name. No format, length, or encoding expectations are given, so it meets the minimum but no more.

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?

States a specific verb (diagnostic inspection) and resource (a text), then enumerates exactly what the inspection reports: tokens, structure, duplication, cleanup projection, recommendation. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the diagnostic/read-only framing implicitly separates it from mutating siblings like compact or prepare.

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 phrase 'diagnostic inspection ... cleanup projection, and recommendation' implies this is the pre-flight check to run before a cleanup/compaction tool, but the description never states when to use it versus compact, compact_transcript, or prepare, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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