inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool aggregates three outputs, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., reindexing) or output format caveats. Some useful context is present, but gaps remain.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function and its relationship to sibling tools. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 schema covers all parameters and the description explains the high-level purpose, the tool is adequately described for selection and invocation. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by naming the three components, though a more detailed description of the combined return structure would improve completeness.

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?

All six parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'outline + references + call chain' maps to the boolean parameters, but the schema already covers this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 combines outline, references, and call chain in a single call, and explicitly mentions it replaces read_outline/references/call_chain. This makes the purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling 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 'replaces read_outline/references/call_chain' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of those alternatives. This is clear, actionable guidance on tool selection.

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