inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Without executing it' is a useful disclosure that the operation does not run the server, but it does not state whether the tool modifies anything, whether the server must already exist, or what happens on failure. It is adequate but thin.

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 sentence with no filler; the key action and the central non-execution constraint are both present. It is appropriately compact, though other dimensions would benefit from more content.

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?

Even though the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description does not address prerequisites, when to prefer this over validate or doctor, or what 'inspect' actually covers. It is incomplete for an agent choosing among the sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description never directly mentions server_path. It only indirectly clarifies that the path should point to a generated server, which is partial but insufficient compensation for the missing parameter documentation.

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 action ('Inspect') and a resource ('a generated server'), and adds a meaningful distinguishing constraint ('without executing it') that separates it from running the server. However, it does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like validate or doctor, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The phrase 'without executing it' implies a non-execution context, but no alternatives are named and no exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names.

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