inspect_xbe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context that only 'allowed' original Xbox XBE files are inspected and that identity matching against a profile occurs, but it does not explain permissions, failure behavior, or what 'allowed' means.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted wording. It delivers the core action and goal efficiently.

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 tool is simple and read-only, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists for return values. However, the description leaves gaps around the 'path' parameter and when the tool should be selected over alternatives.

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 has one required parameter, 'path', with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain it. It is only implicitly clear that the path points to an XBE file, with no format, validation, or source details provided.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('original Xbox XBE'), and adds the goal of matching exact identity to a profile. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'inspect_iso' by operating on XBE rather than ISO files. The term 'allowed' is somewhat vague, but the overall purpose is clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'inspect_iso' or 'list_profiles'. The purpose implies a use case, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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