pvsyst_inspect_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses caveats around project_name UTF-8 root-header reading and utf8_bom PRJ marker reporting, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permissions, or return format.

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 compact and front-loads the main inspection purpose. The technical caveat about UTF-8 BOM handling is relevant but slightly cryptic, and the bracketed category tag is incidental.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should fully explain both input and output. It names several output artifacts (hashes, references, missing-file flags, differences) but leaves the 'project' input undefined and does not describe the overall return shape.

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?

The sole input parameter 'project' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not define what value it expects (path, name, hash, etc.). The mention of 'project_name' appears to describe output or header behavior rather than the input parameter.

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 that the tool lists PRJ/VC hashes and embedded SIT/MET references, flags missing workspace files, and compares project vs. variant sources. This is a specific inspection action, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from similar diagnostic siblings such as pvsyst_review_project_inputs.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies diagnostic inspection through phrases like 'flag missing workspace files' and 'differences'.

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