lean_c_ffi_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspector' implies a read-only, informational operation, and the listed artifacts show scope, but the description does not explain what each action returns, whether side effects occur, or how 'jump_to_c' behaves in a headless/agent context.

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. Every phrase adds meaningful information about the tool's domain and scope.

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?

This is a multi-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the 'sysroot', 'inspect', and 'jump_to_c' actions actually produce or do. The enum names are suggestive, but the description does not explain return values or action semantics clearly enough for fully confident agent invocation.

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 input schema already documents both 'action' and 'externName' adequately. The description adds domain context for the tool's purpose but does not elaborate on parameter-specific behavior beyond what the enum and descriptions provide.

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 names a specific operation ('inspector') and a precise resource domain: Lean @[extern] declarations, C implementations, and sysroot include flags. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling Lean goal/symbol/module tools, which concern different aspects of the Lean environment.

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 provides clear context: use this when working with Lean's C FFI layer, extern declarations, or C implementation navigation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the domain is specific enough that no exclusions are necessary.

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