pai2_inspect_peak

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature. The description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the returned signal_to_noise field and the classes of returned information, but it does not describe the full return shape or error behavior.

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 very short, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no wasted language. The parameter selection rule and return field note are delivered efficiently.

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 two-parameter read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and one return field. It is still incomplete because it does not clarify identifier precedence or fully characterize the returned data, which matters given the absent output schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does specify that peak_id or peak_name should be given, adding important selection semantics absent from the schema, but it does not define formats, precedence, or behavior when both or neither are supplied.

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 and resource: return intensity, S/N, and MS/MS-equivalent information for a specific peak. It is distinguishable from most siblings by centering on a single peak inspection, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby tools like verify_peak_annotation.

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?

It indicates that either peak_id or peak_name should be supplied, which gives basic invocation guidance. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over verify_peak_annotation or dcl_find_msms, nor what to do if both or neither identifier are provided.

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