delivery_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Read') and clarifies it does not render or convert, but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if called before publishing). This leaves some ambiguity for a mutation-free tool.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and qualifiers, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description tells what it does but not what the output looks like, how errors are handled, or what 'server file paths' implies. It is minimally complete but leaves room for an agent to need clarification on return structure and edge cases.

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 only parameter, project_id, has no description in the schema and is not mentioned in the tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it provides no meaning or context for the parameter. The agent must infer that project_id identifies the delivery, which is not explicitly stated.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('delivery manifest and server file paths'), and the qualifier 'already published' which distinguishes it from publishing tools like delivery_publish. The phrase 'without rendering or conversion' explicitly differentiates it from rendering tools like render_start, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage after publishing ('already published') and contrasts with rendering/conversion tools, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is for inspection, but lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative mention.

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