document_inspect_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool 'reports' but does not explain if the tool itself modifies anything, what 'safely support' means (e.g., does it check auth or schema?), or any side effects. The behavior is opaque.

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 very short (4 words). While concise, it under-delivers on necessary context, making it not fully 'earned'—it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 complexity (1 param, output schema exists), the description is insufficient. It does not specify the output format or what capabilities are reported (e.g., read-only vs editable). The agent cannot tell if this tool is needed before editing or exporting.

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 single parameter 'doc_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond its name. The agent has no guidance on format, required prefixes, or how to obtain the ID.

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 'Report what this document can safely support' indicates the tool inspects capabilities, but it is vague about what specific capabilities are reported (e.g., editing, exporting). It is distinguishable from sibling tools by focusing on safety/support, but the purpose is not fully clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or tell the agent to use it before potentially destructive actions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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