inkbolt_document_inspect_page

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the cursor 'binds exact document content, view and page limit' (a snapshot-consistency guarantee), and hidden/locked items are included while resources are structural inventories. It does not describe error or empty-page behavior, but for an annotated read tool this is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense, but every clause carries distinct information (paging, cursor binding, inventory semantics, pinned references).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers paging and resource semantics. However, given the complex multi-variant View2 union and the three-way document input, the description leaves the agent to infer how this tool relates to its many document_* and session_* siblings. Adequate minimum, not complete.

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 coverage is 50%, so the schema already documents part of the surface. The description usefully maps the view argument to its three collection variants (item fields, asset/font inventories, path anchors) and explains that the cursor binds content/view/limit. It adds nothing for control or response_format, leaving the params-without-descriptions uncompensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read bounded pages of selected item fields, asset/font inventories or path anchors.' The 'bounded pages' framing distinguishes it from the non-paged inkbolt_document_inspect sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the pagination-vs-single-read distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Use pinned saved references to avoid resending documents' gives one clear usage tip, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over inkbolt_document_query, inkbolt_document_check, or the unpaged inkbolt_document_inspect. Usage is implied by the paging framing rather than specified.

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