Inspect ICC Plus project status

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 the output contents but not much beyond that, such as potential payload size or cost of including the project JSON. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and lists the full scope of returned information without filler. Every clause contributes meaning, and the optional project JSON is cleanly signaled.

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 read-only, non-destructive status tool with only one required parameter, the description plus schema guidance is mostly sufficient: the agent knows what will be returned and how to avoid expensive optional payloads. It is not a 5 because the description does not explicitly distinguish status inspection from the validation or CSS-analysis siblings, and there is no output schema to clarify return shape.

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 67%; the two boolean parameters are well documented in the schema, including strong guidance to prefer iccplus_read_project and to avoid embedded assets unless required. The main description adds only 'optionally project JSON,' which maps to include_project. The project_id parameter lacks prose but has type/format/pattern constraints, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Return') and enumerates concrete status artifacts: revision, dirty state, summary, Custom CSS analysis, validation counts, and optional project JSON. The schema parameter description further distinguishes it from iccplus_read_project by steering bulk project reads to that sibling, so an agent can tell which tool to use.

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 main description gives clear context about the status payload, and the parameter descriptions provide useful routing guidance: prefer iccplus_read_project for complete project reads and keep embedded assets false unless exact encoded contents are needed. It stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this over iccplus_validate or iccplus_css_analyze, so it is not a full 5.

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