Inspect project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance, error handling, side effects) beyond stating that it 'reads' the project, which is consistent with the annotations. It does not contradict them, but also provides little extra transparency.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately enumerates the returned data. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it both concise and information-dense.

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?

The description lists the key data categories returned (canvas info, layer stacking order, folder depth, visibility, opacity, blend mode, transform), which is substantial given that no output schema exists. It does not specify the exact return format or error conditions, but for a read-only tool with a single parameter, this covers most practical needs. A 4 is appropriate because it could be slightly more explicit about the structure of the response.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, which already explains it should be a path to a .comp project directory. The description reiterates that it reads a .comp project but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, this is an appropriate baseline of 3.

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 reads a .comp project and returns specific details (canvas info, layers in stacking order with folder depth, visibility, opacity, blend mode, transform). It is specific in verb and resource, and the level of detail distinguishes it from siblings like list_layers, which likely only lists names or basic info.

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 this is for detailed inspection due to the comprehensive return list, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as list_layers, nor mention when to prefer one over the other. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, only an implied use case.

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