lom_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only introspection operation, explains the effect of the 'depth' parameter on nested collections, and summarizes the return content. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but 'Introspect' strongly implies non-mutation and the return schema is described adequately.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence yields information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers the main inputs, the meaning of depth, and the return content; an output schema exists to clarify the exact dictionary structure. The only gaps are usage context and possible error behavior, but for a generic introspection tool the description is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining 'path' as the target LOM path and 'depth' as the traversal depth for nested child collections, with a note on its default. This adds meaning beyond the bare type definitions in the schema, though it lacks examples or syntax details.

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 states a specific verb ('Introspect') and resource ('an object generically by LOM path'), and the Returns section clarifies that it reports class, properties, children, and allowed methods. It is clear about its generic scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'describe', which could overlap.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'describe', 'lom_get', or 'lom_call'. The word 'generically' hints at a use case, but there are no exclusions or comparisons, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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