inspect_agent_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool inspects and issues a cryptographic attestation, implying a read-only, verification-oriented behavior, and it names specific checks including dangerous AST executions. It does not detail every side effect or limitation, but the key behavioral outcome is stated clearly.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: the first states scope and checks, the second states the output, the third notes the free trial. It is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, the types of hazards detected, and the attestation output. It could be slightly more explicit about what the caller receives beyond the attestation and about edge cases such as missing ground truth, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description reinforces the relationship between 'context_ground_truth' and hallucination checking, but it does not add substantially new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Inspects', names the exact resource ('an AI agent's text or code output'), and enumerates the concrete categories it checks for: prompt injections, secret leaks, dangerous AST executions, and hallucinations against ground truth. It also states the final output (EIP-191 Proof-of-Safety attestation), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools to compare against.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or alternative sibling, but the description clearly signals the intended use case: verifying the safety and factual accuracy of AI agent output. It gives enough context for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate, though it does not state exclusions or prerequisites such as when a ground-truth comparison is impossible.

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