jumpserver_inspect

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses that probes are fixed and connector-chosen, that output is parsed facts rather than raw shell, and what categories of facts come back. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs to trust and interpret the call.

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-loaded with the action, then the return contents, then the reason to prefer it and the profile list. It is dense and largely earns its space, though the inline enumeration of return facts is long enough to slightly dilute focus.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned facts, and it covers targets, groups, profiles, format, and safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 six parameters, including the profile enum and defaults. The description repeats the profile list but adds no format, syntax, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 (collect) and resource (structured host inventory) with a clear scope (one or more servers). It enumerates the exact facts returned and names the sibling it replaces (jumpserver_exec), so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this rather than a pile of jumpserver_exec calls' names the alternative and the condition. It also warns against inventing shell and points to profiles for scoping, leaving little to inference.

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