we_project_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the inventory is 'bounded' and source text is capped at 256 KiB, which tells the agent output size is limited and truncation is possible. It stops short of saying what happens when the cap or inventory bound is hit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or restated tool name, and the verb leads the sentence. The enumerated list of returned artifacts is dense but readable; a slightly longer form clarifying the projectId input would not hurt given the schema is undocumented.

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, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (revision, manifest, inventory, source text), compensating somewhat for that gap. But it never explains the required projectId, says nothing about inventory scope or pagination, and gives no error or truncation behavior, leaving real gaps for a tool with an undocumented 2-parameter schema.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does this for readFiles by describing 'up to 256 KiB of requested source text,' clarifying content and volume. However, the required projectId parameter receives no explanation at all, and the 256 KiB cap is described as applying to 'source text' without clarifying whether it is per-file or across the whole request.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and enumerates the resources returned: content revision, manifest, file inventory, and optionally source text. This is far more concrete than a tautology like 'inspect a project.' It does not, however, differentiate itself from read-ish siblings such as we_project_list or we_project_validate, so the agent must infer which project-read tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The phrase 'optionally ... requested source text' hints that the readFiles parameter can pull file contents, but the agent is given no condition for choosing this tool over we_project_list or we_project_validate.

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