inkbolt_schema_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description redundantly echoes 'Read-only.' It does add useful context about outline budgeting and that the original schema command returns the entire engine schema, but this is modest additional disclosure beyond the annotated safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then efficient procedural sentences. Slightly dense but each sentence carries actionable routing information without padding.

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 an output schema present, return shapes need not be explained, and the description covers the discovery workflow, outline behavior, and full-schema escape hatch. Missing only explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters including the full, name, select, and response_format with defaults and enum. The description reinforces the intended workflow (name index discovery, variant selection, full:true) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (lookup/discover) and resource (command arguments and shared graphics types), which distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like inkbolt_run. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, keeping it 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?

Gives clear procedural guidance: use name index to discover names, select a variant/definition or use full:true for all reachable definitions. It explains the outline-vs-full tradeoff, though it frames this as mechanics rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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