inspect_board_ir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only reporting operation ('Report whether') and that it describes structure, which implies no side effects. It does not elaborate on failure modes, prerequisites, or response specifics, but the core behavior is clear.

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 or redundancy. It efficiently states the action and expected outcome, fitting the simple nature of the tool.

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?

The description covers the high-level purpose but is incomplete for correct invocation. The opaque 'request' parameter and lack of annotations or usage guidance mean the agent cannot determine exactly what input to provide or how this tool relates to siblings.

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 only parameter 'request' is an opaque, free-form object with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions 'request' or its expected contents, only loosely referencing 'a board'. This gives the agent insufficient information to construct a valid request.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly states the tool's resource ('Board IR') and outcome ('whether a board converts... and describe its structure'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_board by focusing on IR conversion specifically.

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 implies the tool is used for checking Board IR conversion and structural description, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives among siblings are not mentioned, making the usage context only inferred.

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