plate_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a key trait: it returns a real local screenshot as an image block plus objective facts, not a summary or placeholder. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can access arbitrary local files, or what sort of side effects or permissions are involved.

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 sentence with no filler; the most important deliverable (the screenshot image block) is front-loaded before the secondary facts payload. It earns its length, though it relies on other dimensions for completeness.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: what 'path' means, what 'objective image facts' are, and how the returned image block is structured. The agent would need additional context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 only parameter, 'path', has zero schema description and the description never explains what path should point to (a file, directory, or screenshot source). Because schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a concrete deliverable (a local screenshot as an MCP image block), and an additional payload (objective image facts), so the agent can tell what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as plate_capture, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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 offers only a vague purpose ('for the agent to visually inspect') and gives no conditions for when to choose plate_inspect over the many plate_* siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance is present.

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