inspect_tns_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does make clear this is a read-only inspection and lists the categories of content returned, but it says nothing about failure modes (missing or invalid .tns file), whether the file is read locally or from a remote device, or any size/permission constraints.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return contents and the parameter note. The best-value information (what is parsed and what comes back) leads the text; the Sphinx-style ':param' fragment is slightly docstring-flavored but not wasteful.

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, so the description needn't explain return structure, and it correctly focuses on scope and content. However, for a file-consuming tool in a suite that mixes local and remote/device operations, the absence of any statement about where tns_path resolves and what happens on failure leaves a real gap.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. "Ruta al archivo .tns que se desea analizar" identifies what the path points to, but adds no format guidance (absolute vs relative, local filesystem vs remote calculator path) — a meaningful gap given siblings like list_remote_filesystem and direct_upload_tns.

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 verb+resource pair ("parsea e inspecciona un archivo .tns existente") and even enumerates what it extracts: pages, application types (Python, Notas, Hoja de Cálculo, Lua, Ndless), embedded source and <expr> formulas. The word "existente" implicitly separates it from the create_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it applies to an existing .tns file, so an agent can infer it is the read counterpart to create_multipage_tns_document / create_python_tns_document. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions (e.g. file must already exist), and no named alternative for related tasks such as listing or uploading files.

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