Inspect figure template sources

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds context about what is inspected (effective paths, counts, Source Pack details), but doesn't elaborate on side effects or environmental dependencies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently packs multiple pieces of information without wasted words. However, the dense phrasing of 'lifecycle/integrity counts' makes it slightly less accessible, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The presence of an output schema and high schema coverage reduces the description's burden. The description covers the main functions effectively, though terms like 'lifecycle/integrity counts' are left undefined; overall adequate for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions with clear definitions for sourcePackDir and galleryDirectory. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning, only implicitly linking them to the reported paths and Source Pack, so the baseline 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 specifies concrete actions: reporting effective User Library and Gallery paths, lifecycle/integrity counts, and inspecting a Source Pack by file name and size. This goes beyond the generic title, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'audit' or 'reconcile', keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it reports, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool naming.

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