Service Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'without indexing' which hints at a non-mutating, non-heavy operation, but it doesn't elaborate on what readiness/capabilities entail or any side effects. Given the annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative. No waste, but it doesn't earn a 5 due to its brevity.

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 (which covers return values), high schema coverage for the one parameter, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It lacks elaboration on what 'readiness and capabilities' means, but that is likely detailed in the output schema. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 for the single parameter 'component' has 100% coverage, explaining it restricts the report. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('readiness and capabilities'), which is clear. It also adds 'without indexing' as a distinguishing qualifier, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools like inspect_symbol or library_overview. It's not a tautology and gives a concrete sense of the operation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description simply states what it does but never mentions alternatives, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose it over other inspection tools. This is a clear gap.

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