inspect_astrbot_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'step-by-step exploration' and drilling down, which hints at iterative use, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation of usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on parameter meanings and behavioral traits. The output schema helps by documenting return values, but the description doesn't fully address the gaps in parameter semantics and transparency, making it only minimally adequate.

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 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'path' and implies its usage for exploration, but doesn't explain other parameters like conf_id, system_config, include_value, max_children, redact_secrets, or max_string_length. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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's purpose: 'Inspect a node in an AstrBot config JSON.' It specifies the verb ('inspect') and resource ('node in an AstrBot config JSON'), making it distinct from siblings like list_astrbot_config_files or search_astrbot_config_paths. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as get_astrbot_logs, which might also involve inspection but of logs rather than configs.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'This tool is designed for step-by-step exploration' with examples like starting with path=None and drilling down. This implies when to use it (for exploration) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_astrbot_config_files for listing files instead of inspecting nodes. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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