inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states the tool is cheap, returns no source content or exhaustive enumerations, and details the return structure including universal and kind-dependent fields. There is no ambiguity about behavior or safety.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return fields. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and the bullet format improves readability for an AI agent parsing the return types.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool with kind-dependent fields, the description is highly complete. It covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter details, return structure with examples for each kind, and behavioral notes (cheap, no source content). No major gaps are present.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: handle is described as a 'Canonical Python dotted-name string (from resolve/resolve_at)' and project_path as 'Project root path (default: current directory)'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool inspects a canonical handle and returns a structural Node, explicitly framing it as the 'what is this?' operation. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing resolve/resolve_at for obtaining handles and noting this tool is cheap by default without source content or exhaustive enumerations.

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 provides clear context on when to use: it is cheap, returns kind-dependent fields, and notes that edge counts and highlights come in later phases. It implicitly contrasts with more expensive operations but does not explicitly name alternatives like expand or outline for when more detail is needed.

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