Inspect a local Capacitor project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description contributes one genuinely additive behavior: 'Does not return source contents,' a negative-scope boundary the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about filesystem access requirements or the nature of the 'selected' project state, but with annotations carrying the rest, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The scope enumeration is front-loaded and the return boundary is placed last as a constraint, which is exactly the right ordering for a scan-read.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and the enumeration of inspected areas largely does that. It is slightly short on how results are presented (pass/fail vs raw values) or what happens when no project is selected, which keeps it off a 5.

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 schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'the selected local project' hints at implicit context state rather than a parameter, adding mild value.

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?

Uses a specific verb (inspect) on a specific resource (the selected local Capacitor project) and enumerates exactly what is examined: Capacitor/OtaKit config, build output, plugin version, server target, and notifyAppReady evidence. No sibling (list_bundles, get_bundle, check_compatibility) overlaps this diagnostic scope, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 a preflight/diagnostic use case by listing what it inspects, but never states when to reach for it versus siblings like check_compatibility or get_release_state, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a project must be selected first). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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