springboot_inspect_config

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that results are returned after mandatory double-layer redaction, that the capability is disabled by default, and that it cannot be used for secrets or full configuration export. These are meaningful operational and security behaviors that an agent needs in order to invoke it responsibly. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint=false.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence: return scope first, then when to use it, then safety constraints. There is no filler, and each clause adds information relevant to selection or invocation.

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 output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. However, with 7 parameters and low schema description coverage, the description leaves notable invocation gaps around pagination, target/context selection, and includeValues. It is adequate but not fully complete for correct parameter use.

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 schema description coverage is only 14%, so the description must carry most parameter meaning, but it only mentions prefix and key-pattern invocation. It does not explain targetId, contextId, cursor, maxResults, or includeValues, leaving several parameters without descriptive semantics in either the schema or the description. The propertyKeyPattern schema description helps, but overall compensation is weak for a 7-parameter tool.

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 gives a specific verb and resource set: it returns effective properties, bound beans, source locations, and active profiles after mandatory double-layer redaction. The resource scope is clearly configuration inspection rather than health, startup, migrations, drift, bean listing, OpenAPI, or mappings, so an agent can distinguish it from the siblings.

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 explicitly says to call this when troubleshooting property binding or configuration overrides, and to do so via prefix or key pattern. It also states clear exclusions: the capability is disabled by default and must not be used to obtain secrets or export full configuration. It does not name a specific alternative sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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