Inspect compact CRUMB metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the output is 'bounded' and consists of a save summary and tool-ID counts, and that it is not for paginated semantic details. This helps the agent form accurate expectations about scope and granularity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a pointer to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 the tool has an output schema, annotations, and only two well-documented parameters, the description is complete enough to guide selection and invocation. It communicates the compact, bounded nature and the existence of a more detailed alternative, making it fully contextual for an agent.

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% (both 'path' and 'expectedProjectDigest' have clear descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics, but that's acceptable given the schema carries the full burden. 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 clearly states the tool returns 'a bounded save summary and tool-ID counts', identifying the specific resource and output type. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling crumb_analyze_design, which provides paginated semantic details, eliminating ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use crumb_analyze_design for paginated semantic component and connection details, effectively conveying when this compact inspection tool is appropriate. This is a clear when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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