Inspect a pad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation with potentially side effects. The description adds critical behavioral context: pads are ephemeral (lost after server restart or 24h without connection). This goes beyond annotations and clarifies data durability expectations.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states what the tool does and what it returns, the second gives critical ephemerality context. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 read operation with one parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention that the metadata is real-time or that the socket connection affects latency, but this is sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. The schema already explains the pattern and meaning of 'id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'fetches' and the resource 'metadata about a pad', listing specific fields (content length, revision, editor language, open users). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_document (which presumably fetches content) and get_stats (which likely returns aggregate statistics).

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 implies usage for fetching live pad metadata via the collaboration socket, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_document. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings.

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