project_inspect

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

The description states an inspection action, and annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. No contradictions. It could further note that no modifications will occur, but annotations already cover the main safety profile.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 covers the main purpose and parameter implications, and an output schema is present, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit note on null revision semantics, but the context is otherwise adequate.

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 description partially explains parameters: 'specified revision' clarifies revision, and 'paginated glyph inventory' implies limit/offset. However, project_id is not explained, and there are no schema-level descriptions. The meaning of a null revision is also left implicit.

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 action ('Inspect') and the resource/scope: revision, metadata, metrics, kerning, and paginated glyph inventory. This is specific enough to distinguish it from similar project and glyph tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_open, glyph_get, or history_list. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and read-only annotations.

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