inspect_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-destructive trait ('without converting it') plus that readiness metadata can be included. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth needs, whether the inspection has any side effects, or what the routing output contains, so the side-effect profile is only partially covered.

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 tightly written sentences: the core routing behavior is front-loaded and the optional readiness capability is appended. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must sketch the return; it does so at a high level (routing decision, optional local readiness from doctor checks). Combined with fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete, though the shape/contents of a routing result remain underspecified.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates the accepted uri forms and the readiness concept but adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (inspect) plus resource (how OMD routes a URL/share blob/file path/directory), and it explicitly contrasts with the sibling convert_to_markdown via 'without converting it'. Clear enough to distinguish from conversion tools, though its relation to the other siblings is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: use this to preview routing instead of converting. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of when an agent should prefer this over convert_to_markdown beyond the single contrast phrase.

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