inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds the non-obvious caveat that 'document values are not returned,' which prevents an agent from expecting raw data. It also sketches the returned shape (anchors, row counts, fields, types) beyond what annotations convey, though it omits cost/limits on large documents.

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 core purpose, and every clause carries routing or output information. It is dense to the point of being run-on across three workflow/routing sentences, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return shape in one clause, and the workflow position plus sibling routing is fully specified. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly as step one of the pipeline.

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 coverage is 100% and the single docId parameter is documented in-schema as coming from load_doc. The description reinforces the prerequisite by saying 'in a loaded document,' but adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('find the repeatable arrays and object maps in a loaded document') plus the outcome ('can become linked tables'), a metaphor 'first step toward a spreadsheet' that frames the whole workflow. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like profile or sample, which are named as alternatives for related but different needs.

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 sequences the tool: 'Next, draft_spec writes a mapping and convert writes the file,' and routes other needs away ('for field names and types use get_schema, for coverage and statistics profile, and for real values sample'). No inference required to know when this tool applies vs. its siblings.

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