jrg_inspect

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

The description states the output format but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it is adequate for a simple inspection tool but lacks details like permissions or limitations.

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 sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every part contributes 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the input (jrg:// URL) and output (JSON manifest of interactive elements). However, it lacks notes on error handling or performance considerations.

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% (the single 'url' parameter has a description). The tool description adds context about the overall purpose but does not provide additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Inspect'), the resource ('a JRG page'), and the output ('a JSON manifest of interactive elements' with specific types). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like jrg_fetch (raw content) or jrg_list (list pages).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like jrg_fetch or jrg_search. The sibling list provides context but no direct advice on selection criteria.

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