pvsyst_review_project_inputs

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so extensively: it states read-only behavior, no writes, no GUI activation, no licence query, no annual simulation, no geometry repair, and no arbitrary filesystem reads. It also explains status semantics and the readonly/native_consumption_verified/runtime_state_observed flags.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence appears relevant to the tool's scope, limitations, or status meanings. It is still a dense wall of prose, which makes it harder to scan than a more structured presentation would be.

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?

For a complex tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies substantial missing context: compared fields, status meanings, scope exclusions, and read-only guarantees. It is not fully complete because return values are only partially described and the project/variant parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives strong semantics for preparation_manifest_name, including its expected path pattern, provenance, and limits, but it does not explain whether project and variant are names, IDs, or another identifier format.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: compare producer-declared source inputs with saved project/variant fields, read-only. It also distinguishes this review from the sibling preparation step by naming pvsyst_prepare_design_project and clarifying that the manifest is a baseline rather than authenticated evidence.

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?

It clearly establishes the prerequisite source of preparation_manifest_name and the read-only review context, including scope limits such as one Grid subarray and fixed non-seasonal orientation. However, it does not explicitly route the agent between this tool and alternatives such as pvsyst_inspect_project or pvsyst_get_variant_parameters.

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