tutor_card_inspect

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

The description lists the content of the summary, giving insight into what the tool returns. However, it does not explain behavioral aspects such as whether it fetches from a URL or processes inline JSON, whether it requires authentication, or if it has side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and is partially transparent.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists the summary contents. It is concise and front-loaded, but the dense list may be hard to parse quickly. No unnecessary words, but structure could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation.

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 the tool has two optional parameters with no explanations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on input modes, the definition of 'structured summary', and how this inspect tool differs from other inspect tools (e.g., agent_card_inspect). Significant gaps remain.

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?

Both parameters (`url` and `document_json`) have no descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not explain their purpose or when to use each. This is a critical gap, as the dual-mode operation (fetch vs. local) is not clarified. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails.

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 clearly states the tool provides a structured summary of a Tutor Card, listing specific elements like identity, audience, pedagogy, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tutor_card_fetch (which retrieves the raw card) and tutor_card_validate (which checks validity). However, it could more explicitly contrast with similar inspect tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., tutor_card_subject_check, tutor_card_coppa_check), the description should indicate that this is a general overview tool, while others are for specific checks. No exclusions or context provided.

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