drx_inspect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses honest limitations: 'reports its structure honestly rather than pretending to fully decode it,' then enumerates exactly what is extracted (root tag, child tags with counts, approximate node count, ASC CDL SOP values). This gives the agent a realistic expectation of output fidelity and scope.

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?

Two short paragraphs: the first states purpose, the second adds essential behavioral detail and the application alternative. Every sentence provides distinct value, no filler, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 inspection tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its limitations, and sibling alternatives. It addresses the complexity of the proprietary .drx format without over-explaining, and the output schema handles return values.

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 schema already covers the single parameter (file_path) with a clear description ('Absolute path to a .drx file'), so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate further.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Inspect a Resolve .drx grade-exchange file (read-only).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like color_apply_drx by focusing on inspection rather than application, and explicitly names the file type being handled.

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?

It explicitly says to use other tools for applying the .drx: 'Apply a .drx inside a running Resolve with the timeline / timeline_item grade tools (ApplyGradeFromDRX).' This provides a clear when-not-to-use directive and names alternatives, making usage context unambiguous.

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