neon3_nui_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states a read-like operation ('Return') but never explicitly confirms no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior, required context, or any constraints. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the output list is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 a single, compact sentence that efficiently lists the returned items. It is concise and not padded with fluff, though it lacks any structural breaks or emphasis on key aspects.

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 that returns a rich set of artifacts (IR, schemas, state machines, etc.) with no output schema, the description should at least hint at the format or structure of the return. It does not. Moreover, it fails to clarify the input parameter, leaving agents without enough context to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'source' with no description, and the tool description does not explain it at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not clarify what 'source' refers to (e.g., a path, an ID, or a reference). This is a critical omission.

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 a specific action ('Return') and a detailed resource list (canonical IR, schema, state machines, etc.), making it unambiguous what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like neon3_nui_validate or neon3_nui_reference, so an agent might not know when to pick this one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only enumerates the returned artifacts, with no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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