aup_inspect

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

No annotations provided; description states it returns a structured summary, suggesting a read operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether authentication is needed. The output content is described, but behavioral context is incomplete.

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?

Single sentence is clear and lists output components concisely. However, it is not structured into sections for usage or parameters, and could benefit from front-loading the action more directly.

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?

Describes output fields in detail, which is useful given no output schema. However, it fails to explain input parameters or default behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with no required parameters.

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 has two optional parameters (url, document_json) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the AUP source or that both are optional.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a structured summary of a Classroom AI AUP, listing specific fields like policy identity and use counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as aup_fetch (raw retrieval) and aup_check_compliance (compliance checking).

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?

Implies usage for obtaining a structured summary, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like aup_fetch or aup_validate. No indications of prerequisites or when not to use the tool.

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