inspect_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'without rewriting' adds a small amount of behavioral context (input is not mutated) but is essentially a restatement of readOnlyHint, with no detail on depth of analysis or output shape beyond the separate output schema.

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 compact sentences, with the core capability front-loaded before the routing guidance. There is no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 output schema and annotations relieve the description of explaining return values and safety, and the usage sentence is crisp. However, for a tool whose only real surface is its two parameters, the complete absence of parameter guidance leaves an agent guessing how to populate 'context' and what mark the 'critical' flag has.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and it never mentions 'prompt' or 'context' at all. It leaves the context array's kind enum, the 'critical' flag, and the 128-item/64000-char limits entirely undocumented in prose.

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) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: intent, ambiguity, conflicts, and context. The phrase 'without rewriting' implicitly separates it from the optimize/adapt siblings, though no sibling is named outright.

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 gives both a positive trigger ('use to diagnose instructions') and an exclusion ('skip simple factual questions'), which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming alternative tools such as evaluate_prompt or optimize_prompt when the diagnosis turns into scoring or rewriting.

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