Detect web project capabilities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that it inspects known markers and does not start a process, but does not elaborate on edge cases or return behavior beyond what the output schema provides.

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 that front-loads the core action and immediately adds the key constraint 'without starting a process'. There is no filler and every phrase earns its place.

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 simple static inspection tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only notable omission is parameter documentation, which is mitigated by the self-explanatory name and default value.

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 0%, and the description does not mention projectRoot at all. The parameter name and default /app give some self-evident meaning, but the tool description fails to clarify valid values or how the root relates to 'known project markers', making this a real gap.

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 action and resource: inspects known project markers and reports supported browser/framework capabilities. The 'without starting a process' qualifier clearly differentiates it from process-launching siblings.

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 the tool is for static capability detection and explicitly rules out starting a process. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when to prefer this over web_session_start or web_next_inspect, so usage guidance remains somewhat implicit.

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