Explore closure and upvalues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it mentions recursive traversal, constants, nested prototypes, and bounded upvalue values, which gives the agent a clearer picture of what the tool does.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Recursively inspect') and packs relevant detail without any filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does not describe return values or edge cases. It covers core behavior and annotations handle safety, but it lacks usage context and parameter guidance, making it adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is only 17% (only clientId is described). The description mentions 'constants' and 'upvalue values' which map to includeConstants and includeUpvalues, but it does not explain the required path, maxDepth, or maxItemsPerClosure, leaving key parameters underspecified.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('runtime closure metadata'). It enumerates key aspects (constants, nested prototypes, bounded upvalue values), which distinguishes it from static-analysis siblings like disassemble_script, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely definitional and lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or pointers to sibling tools.

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