Inspect instance metatable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the required capability (getrawmetatable), the preconditions, cost=medium, and that it produces a structured-observation, though it says nothing about the shape or size of the returned keys.

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?

Front-loads the purpose well, but the back half is a boilerplate metadata string (Phase/cost/idempotency/Requires/Capabilities/Produces/Safety/On failure) that partially duplicates the annotations and restates the signature. Functional but not tight.

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 read-only inspection tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining needed context: preconditions, required capability, and output type. Absent an output schema, a note on the return shape would be the only meaningful addition.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the signature ({ instancePath: string, threadContext: number? }) without adding format, constraint, or default detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get metatable keys from a target Instance path') with an inline example path. The focus on 'keys' distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like get-metatable and get-metamethod, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Provides preconditions ('Requires: active-client, resolved-target') and a phase tag ('observe'), which implies when the tool fits. However, it never states when to prefer this over get-metatable, get-metamethod, or the set-metatable siblings, so alternative selection is left implicit.

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