AI Model And Cache Inventory

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds key behavioral context: it explicitly states 'does not read model, prompt, source, token, or credential contents' and 'does not mutate files.' This goes beyond the hints by specifying what is not read and what is not mutated, which is valuable for the agent. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that states purpose, scope, and key behavioral constraints. It is front-loaded with the action ('return a bounded asset projection') and includes critical exclusions. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff.

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 that the tool has an output schema (which presumably describes the return projection), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The tool is simple (1 optional parameter) and has strong annotations. The description covers behavior and constraints well. It is complete enough for the agent to understand what the tool does and what it avoids. The only minor gap is not providing more context on when to use it vs. siblings, but given the simplicity, a 4 is justified.

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%, meaning the schema documents the 'tool' parameter with its enum values. The description adds context by saying 'Optional Core inventory tool selector,' but this is largely redundant with the schema's 'Optional Core inventory tool selector' description. Since the schema already covers the parameter well, the description adds minimal extra meaning, but it does reinforce the optionality, so a baseline 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 clearly states that the tool returns a 'bounded asset projection' using 'AI Disk Doctor's existing metadata-only model inventory with Core defaults.' It specifies the resource (model inventory) and the action (return a projection), which is clear enough. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like scan_summary or core_status, though the resource and action are specific enough to imply differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage by stating it uses 'Core defaults' and an optional tool selector, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It doesn't say when to use this tool vs. siblings, but the context of a metadata-only inventory is somewhat clear. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.

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