Inspect deployment and file-scope capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation value by stating the negative boundary ('does not grant permissions, run commands, or change services'), which disambiguates it from the mutating siblings like reconcile_permissions and start_service.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what it reports, then the override/inheritance rule, then the non-actions. No wasted text, though the 'reply_run inherits its parent run' clause assumes context the reader may not have.

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 zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is reported and what is explicitly not done. It is adequate; only the relationship to sibling capability-listing tools is unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of call-value override semantics is contextual rather than parameter-specific.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and enumerates the three resource categories it reports: supported operations, MCP permission defaults, and external path policy. This is far more precise than the title, though it never names or contrasts with the nearby sibling 'list_capabilities', so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

It gives a useful precedence rule ('explicit call values override defaults; reply_run inherits its parent run'), which implies when the reported values are authoritative. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs 'list_capabilities', 'doctor', or 'read_session_context', and no statement of preconditions.

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