runtime_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape (class plus each property's type and value), which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits failure behavior (invalid path/object_id) and any prerequisite that a game session must be live.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return contract immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape, and the schema covers all four parameters. The main residual gap is the absence of any routing hint among the many runtime_* siblings, which a fuller definition would supply.

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%: node path formats, object_id provenance, the properties filter default, and the session_id condition are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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: read the current property values of one node or object in a running game. The scope ('one node or object', 'current values') is precise enough to separate it from runtime_tree's whole-tree listing, but the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance beyond the implied 'the game is running'. It does not mention that node paths come from runtime_tree, that runtime_set is the counterpart for changing values, or what to do if the node is not found. An agent must infer the workflow from the sibling list.

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