Inspect Update Set

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true already convey a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail about output structure ('grouped by type'), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions or hidden side effects are mentioned; this is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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 one tight sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action verb, specifies the resource, and adds illustrative examples in parentheses—all without bloat.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output format, and typical contents. While there is no output schema, the grouped-by-type description provides a mental model. It could mention limitations or dependencies, but for a read-only inspection tool, it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100% for parameters sys_id and instance, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it implies the need for an update set identifier ('an update set's contents'). The schema already documents both parameters clearly.

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 specifies the verb 'inspect' and the resource 'update set's contents', and differentiates from sibling tools like list_update_sets by focusing on the components within an update set. The examples 'business rules, script includes' add specificity.

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 clear usage: when you need to see the components of a specific update set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'inspect contents' is distinct enough to guide tool selection.

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