Inspect a named type

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to re-state that. It adds the inspection dimensions (size/kind/declaration/members) beyond the annotation, but says nothing about the optional instance_id target scoping or results limits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical efficiently lists the output facets. It is arguably too terse for a tool that accepts either a single object or an array of query objects, but there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotation covers the safety profile. However, for a tool sitting among type_query, read_struct, search_structs, and infer_types, the description never states when to pick it over those, leaving a real gap in routing guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'name', 'max_members', 'include_members', and 'instance_id'. The description only indirectly signals member inclusion via the parenthetical 'members' and adds nothing about the batch-array form of queries or the target-instance default. 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 gives a specific verb ('Inspect') plus resource ('named types') and enumerates the returned facets (size/kind/declaration/members), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as type_query, read_struct, or search_structs, which is the only thing 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite notes, and no pointer to alternatives like type_query for querying or read_struct for reading a struct layout. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.

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