springboot_inspect_beans

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: auto-reading the authorized condition report on missing beans, expanding nested/transitive blocking chains, and returning 'unknown' rather than guessing when evidence is insufficient. That evidence-gated output policy is valuable context, though it omits pagination/response mechanics already partly covered by annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the return content and follows with the trigger condition; every clause carries signal. Slightly compact for the number of concepts, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the behavioral narrative is solid. However, for a 10-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage, key controls (pagination, depth, target/context scoping) remain undocumented, leaving the agent under-informed to call it precisely.

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?

With 10 parameters and only ~20% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate but largely does not. It hints at bidirectional direction and condition depth via '双向依赖图' and '条件报告', but leaves cursor, maxDepth, maxResults, targetId, contextId, and packagePrefix unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns matching Beans, aliases, and a bidirectional dependency graph, and augments with condition-report details when a Bean is missing. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inspect_config or verify_mappings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 an explicit trigger: call when troubleshooting injection or conditional assembly (排查注入或条件装配时调用), which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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