inkbolt_document_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete scope of inspection (stable IDs, locks, world transforms, unclipped bounds, inventories), which is useful context, but says nothing about cost, pagination, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly list-heavy, which reads more like a return-value dump than a purpose statement, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With a full output schema and complete annotations in place, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly avoids doing so. It remains thin on the one thing structured data cannot supply: routing guidance against the many inspect/check/query 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both 'document' and 'response_format'. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns nothing extra.

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 verb 'Inspect' plus a concrete enumeration of what is inspected (item IDs, hierarchy, visibility, locks, transforms, geometry bounds, resource inventories) makes the tool's purpose immediately legible. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like inkbolt_document_check, inkbolt_document_query, or inkbolt_document_inspect_page, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these to pick.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite four sibling tools operating on the same document concept. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and output list.

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