Inspect project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant with structured data. The description does add value by naming what is inspected (compiled artifacts with timestamps, .rpt cleanliness), giving a sense of the operation's scope, but it discloses nothing about cost, failure modes, or behavior when the project is missing.

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 that leads with the verb and resource, then compresses the inspection contents into a tight list ending with the read-only note. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the summarized artifacts, which is adequate for an inspect tool. Safety is covered by annotations. Minor gaps remain around error/precondition handling, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 both 'project' (name or .acf path) and 'workspace' (resolution directory) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (summarize/inspect) and resource (one project), and enumerates the concrete contents returned: .acf sections, CHIP blocks, device, pin count, compiled artifacts, and .rpt cleanliness. It is clearly distinct from list_projects and the various editors, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like acf_read_sections or scf_inspect.

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 'one project' implicitly signals single-project use as opposed to list_projects, and the enumeration of coverage hints at what questions it answers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. acf_read_sections for section-only reads), leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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