inspect_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get a summary' implies a read-only operation and describes the type of output, but it does not disclose whether the tool scans files, how costly it might be, or whether it has side effects beyond simply reporting. Still, it is clearly a read-style tool.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the main action and then naming the specific summary contents. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does enough by stating what kind of summary will be returned. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'project size' and 'command/dialog counts' refer to, but the invocation is simple and clear.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The description is free to focus on behavior and output, which it does.

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 names a specific operation ('Get a summary') and a clear resource ('the project'), with explicit metrics: project size, line counts, and estimated command/dialog counts. This differentiates it from the more operational sibling tools like get_status or audit_performance.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusion conditions. With 50+ siblings, a brief usage hint would meaningfully improve the definition.

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