dev_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 burden. It discloses the scope of inspection and a performance characteristic (slower), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, required permissions, or potential side effects. The word 'inspection' implies non-mutating, yet it is not stated outright.

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 that are front-loaded with the purpose and a detailed list, followed by a comparative note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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-value details are already covered. The description specifies a rich set of inspected aspects and includes a performance caveat. It does not explain the workspace parameter's role, but that is captured under parameter semantics. Overall, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to decide to call the tool and understand its high-level behavior.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'workspace' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no contextual meaning about what value to provide (e.g., project root path) or how it affects the inspection.

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 'inspection' with a specific resource ('project') and enumerates concrete content: ecosystems, runtimes, build tools, commands, environment variables, OS info, Git state. It also differentiates from dev_detect by noting 'broader and slower', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 contrasts with dev_detect ('Broader and slower than dev_detect'), giving a comparative usage cue. It implies choosing this tool when depth is needed over speed, though it does not list explicit when-not-to-use conditions or mention any other sibling tools.

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