proteus_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals a read-only inspection that does not require the Proteus application, which is meaningful context. However, it says nothing about permissions, error handling, or constraints, and a read-only nature is only implied by 'Inspect.'

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 sentence, front-loaded with the domain label and the verb+object. The bracketed preamble is slightly verbose but earns its place by establishing the Proteus context, and 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. For a one-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description covers purpose and output content adequately; only usage guidance is thin.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does by naming the expected file format ('.pdsprj container'). That directly clarifies what 'project_file' should point to, though it adds no detail about the parameter's type or path conventions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a .pdsprj container'), and enumerates what it extracts: embedded files, firmware references, MCU hints. The bracketed prefix identifies the Proteus domain. No sibling differentiation is needed since the surrounding sibling tools (EAGLE, Altium, drawio, time utilities) operate on entirely different artifacts, but the definition never explicitly distinguishes itself from them.

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 phrase 'without opening Proteus' implies a use case (inspecting a project when the application is unavailable or undesirable), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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