get_llm_runtime_inventory

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

With no annotations, the full behavioral burden falls on the description; the single reassurance 'No secrets read' is a genuinely valuable disclosure given 'API-key handling' is listed as a detection target, and it forestalls fears of credential exfiltration. Beyond that it says nothing about read-only status, scope, or whether it inspects code, assets, or scene objects.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded, with no filler words and a useful closing caveat. The telegraphic colon-list style lacks an explicit verb subject, which slightly weakens scannability but wastes nothing.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent still does not know the shape of the result set -- whether it returns file paths, match counts, severity, or code snippets -- or what detection scope applies. The pattern list plus the no-secrets note covers the domain but not the mechanics.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is a 4. The topic list gives some sense of what is scanned, even though it does not substitute for parameter semantics.

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 is a noun fragment ('In-game LLM patterns: HTTP calls, SSE/streaming, WebSockets, API-key handling, chat memory, retry') that enumerates the topics the inventory covers, which tells the agent what subject matter to expect. It never states the verb or scope of the operation (scan a Unity project? summarize config? locate files?), so the agent must infer purpose from the tool name alone.

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?

No mention of when to use this versus the many sibling get_*_inventory tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the name and topic list that this is the LLM-related alternative to the package, optimization, and accessibility inventories.

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