Inspect Update Set

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 states the tool lists components grouped by type, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits.

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 concise sentence (15 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes illustrative examples. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

For a simple inspection tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return structure (e.g., whether it returns a summary or full list of components). It does not explain the output format beyond 'grouped by type', which is minimal.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (instance auth alias and sys_id). No parameter-specific details are in the description.

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 clearly states the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'update set's contents', and specifies the output format (grouped by type with examples like business rules, script includes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clone_update_set, create_update_set, and list_update_sets.

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 for examining the contents of a specific update set, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_current_update_set or list_update_sets. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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