inventory-status

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic action without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The agent gains no behavioral insight beyond the generic action.

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 concise single phrase with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though a bit more context could improve usability without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what 'staleness' means and what the tool returns. It does not, leaving the agent without necessary context to interpret results.

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 only parameter 'detailed' has a schema description ('Show detailed status information') achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check inventory status and staleness' clearly specifies the action (check) and resource (inventory status and staleness). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate-inventory' or 'compare-inventory-state', though 'staleness' is somewhat vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'hardware-inventory', 'compare-inventory-state'), the description should indicate the appropriate context or exclusions.

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