inspection_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that – it runs in the background, respects a daily quota, and resumes after restarts – but stays silent on the state-changing action parameter and what a start call actually enqueues.

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 tight sentence with the key runtime constraint front-loaded after the core purpose. Nothing is wasted, though the space saved is not spent on the operationally important action semantics.

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 job-control tool with three action modes and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what start, stop, and status return. It covers the long-running/quota behavior well but leaves the control surface, which is the primary invocation path, unexplained.

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 100%, so every parameter including the action enum is documented in the schema itself. The description hints at the daily quota concept (mapping loosely to daily_limit) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 indicates a background inspection job that drains a queue, but never states the controlling verb set (start/stop/status) that the tool actually exposes. It also does not differentiate it from sibling tools like run_inspections or queue_urls, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name.

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 gives a runtime precondition (Claude Desktop must be open), which is useful context, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus run_inspections, and no indication of when each action value (start vs stop vs status) is appropriate.

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