inspect_jar

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. The word 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation and the listed metadata areas give useful context, but the description does not mention whether matching multiple JARs fails or picks one, how output is returned, or any performance implications.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and verb, then efficiently enumerates the inspected contents without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope well, but lacks usage guidance, selector hierarchy, and return-format expectations. With no output schema and no annotations, a more complete description would help an agent decide when to invoke this versus sibling tools and how to interpret the result.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema for any of the nine parameters. Schema description coverage is 67%, so the schema handles most parameters, but the description does not compensate for the remaining parameters (limit, query, offset) or explain the relationships between the multiple selection methods such as jarPath, coordinates, jarDirectory, jarNamePrefix, and workspacePath.

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 identifies the resource ('one JAR') and the verb ('Inspect'), and enumerates the main inspection areas: manifest, Maven coordinates, layout, packages, classes, resources, and nested JAR metadata. It is specific enough to distinguish this from broad project scanning or class-level inspection, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as find_jar, search_class, inspect_class, or read_resource. 'Inspect one JAR' implies a use case, but there are no alternative routes, exclusions, or conditions stated.

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