yaaif_desktop_tool_package_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors: 'Does not upload' and 'Reads optional yaaif-tool-package.json'. Still, it does not state whether the codebase is modified, what kind of plan is returned, or whether any network access occurs beyond the upload disclaimer.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the most important scoping constraint ('Does not upload') is front-loaded. Every phrase contributes either to purpose, location, or behavioral boundaries.

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?

This is a 15-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, yet the description gives only a high-level purpose. An agent still lacks guidance on optional parameter meaning, return format, side effects, and how this step fits into the broader package lifecycle.

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 only 27%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It clarifies that source_dir points at a local codebase and that yaaif-tool-package.json may supply metadata, but the many optional fields (version, platform, capabilities, command_args, env_template, timeout_seconds, etc.) are left completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect'), a precise resource ('a local command/stdio MCP codebase'), and a concrete outcome ('propose Package Registry metadata + archive plan'). It also adds 'Does not upload', which distinguishes it from publishing and uploading siblings like yaaif_desktop_tool_package_publish.

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 implies usage context: it is for local inspection, reads an optional config file, and explicitly avoids uploading. However, it never names alternative tools such as yaaif_desktop_tool_package_get, publish, or install, nor states when a caller should choose this tool over them.

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