sb_traits_for

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool exposes inspector structure, control-level write targets, AI hints, and the ability to narrow into one control for fuller detail. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before giving usage guidance. The wording is somewhat dense and uses jargon like 'DECLARED control,' but every clause contributes meaningful information.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of the returned content and how to narrow it. It is incomplete mainly because the required type parameter is not explicitly defined, and there is no mention of response shape or potential size of the inspector output.

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 control parameter is well explained by both the schema and description, including the hint to narrow to one control. However, the required type parameter has no schema description and the description only implies its meaning through 'this element's INSPECTOR,' leaving the agent to infer what values type should take.

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 identifies what the tool returns: the inspector structure for an element, including tabs, groups, control names, what each control writes, and AI hints. It is tied to 'this element' and styling, which gives it a distinct identity among the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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 description explicitly says to read this before styling an element, and explains the optional control parameter as a way to read one control in full. This gives a clear when-to-use signal, though it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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