Inspect Object

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the call doesn't change virtual world state and that it returns clues plus valid interaction IDs, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the side-effect guarantee and return content are stated in the second sentence.

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 an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it needs, what it returns, and that it is side-effect free. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the origin and constraints of targetId and the pattern for runId. The description adds only visibility wording ('visible object') but does not need to paraphrase what the schema already explains.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('one visible object by targetId'), and states what the call yields (clues and valid interaction IDs). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools such as look, use, and move, since it is a targeted, non-mutating inspection action.

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 this should be used after look has provided a targetId and when the agent wants clues or interaction IDs for one object. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative, leaving some inference to the agent.

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