inspection_batch

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Inspect' without clarifying what inspection entails (e.g., indexing status, validity check), potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. This is insufficient for a batch operation.

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 extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient but may be overly brief for a batch operation with 4 parameters. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks necessary detail for safe invocation, earning a moderate 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., inspection results, status codes). Constraints like the max 5 URLs are only in the schema, not the description. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Inspect multiple URLs'), the resource ('URLs'), and the context ('for a site in batch'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'inspection_inspect' which likely handles single URL inspection. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 for batch inspection of multiple URLs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspection_inspect' or other analytics tools. No context on prerequisites or limitations is given, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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