Inspect instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds context by stating it inspects 'safe common properties', which signals that potentially unsafe or volatile properties are excluded, and mentions 'optional properties', indicating the returned data can be extended. This goes beyond the annotations and gives behavioral insight.

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 of 14 words, with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb 'Inspect' and efficiently conveys the scope. Every word adds value.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the result content. It lists what is included (properties, attributes, tags, children) but does not describe the return format, the role of the path, or the default behavior of includeChildren. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 only 25% (only clientId is described). The description mentions 'optional properties', which relates to the 'properties' parameter, but it does not explain the meaning or behavior of 'path' (the required parameter) or 'includeChildren'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters underdocumented.

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') and the target resource ('one instance'), and lists what is included (common properties, attributes, tags, children, optional properties). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_tree' by specifying a single instance, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself with other inspection tools.

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 phrase 'one instance' implies this tool is for inspecting a specific instance rather than the whole tree (e.g., get_tree), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There are no alternative tool names or exclusion criteria, so usage context is only implied.

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