inspect_mcdev_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing read-only behavior and explicit non-actions: it never reads auth contents or history and never repairs, stages, or untracks files. It still omits permission requirements and return behavior, but the core safety profile is clearly stated.

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 definition is two tightly packed sentences with no wasted language. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists the read-only constraints.

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 no-output-schema inspection tool, the description gives a useful sense of what is read and what safety constraints apply. It could say more about the shape of the returned config/metadata, but it is largely complete for invocation.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains workspaceRoot as the canonical absolute mcdev project root. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read the complete unredacted project config, including credentials, and inspect Git ignore/index metadata for auth protection. The word UNREDACTED implicitly distinguishes it from read/preview config siblings, but it does not explicitly name or route against those alternatives.

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 description implies when to use it: when full unredacted config and Git auth-protection metadata are needed. It does not explicitly say when to choose it over read_mcdev_project_config, preview_mcdev_project_config, or the git-policy inspection siblings.

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