inspect_iso

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description still adds useful information: the subject must be an 'allowed local' path, entries are returned in bounded form (i.e. limit/offset pagination), and nothing is extracted to disk. It does not spell out what the authorization check looks like or what happens when a path is rejected, but the description does give real value beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentence. It leads with the verb and the resource, then sets the scope constraint, and it closes with the non-behavioral guarantee of 'without extracting'. It wastes no words and reads naturally as a summary line.

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?

The output schema handles return values, and the annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is small. That said, for a tool whose main failure mode is a rejected path, the description never explains what makes a path 'allowed' or whether the path must be absolute, so it leaves an important operational detail unresolved.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone does not document any of the three parameters; the description supplies some compensation by noting that 'bounded entries' motivate the limit parameter and that 'allowed local' constrains the path. However, it does not describe the offset parameter or explain the limit defaults and bounds, so the agent must make inferences about pagination behavior.

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 uses a specific verb (read/inspect) on a specific resource (XDVDFS ISO), and it names the scope (local, allowed) and the output shape (bounded entries plus XBE identity, no extraction). It implicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling inspect_xbe tool by targeting ISOs rather than standalone XBE files, but it never states that distinction explicitly.

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 phrase 'without extracting' implies when not to use this tool (for extraction), and 'allowed local' hints at a path-allowlist prerequisite. That said, the description says nothing explicit about when to choose it over inspect_xbe, or about what 'allowed' means operationally, so the agent must infer those things.

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