inspect_project_context

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

No annotations provided. The description implies read-only behavior via '读取' but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, performance implications, or any side effects. Does not explain the purpose of timeout_seconds or security considerations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema).

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks context for using the parameters, especially the distinction between project_path and open_current_project. It does not address how the tool fits into a workflow or its relationship to siblings like debug_runtime_context.

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 provides no explanation of the four parameters. The agent has no understanding of project_path, open_current_project, timeout_seconds, or include_source_details beyond their titles.

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 tool reads a project overview and lists included components (layout, map frame, default map candidate, data source status). It distinguishes from other tools like buffer_features, but does not differentiate from the similar-sounding debug_runtime_context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no differentiation between the project_path and open_current_project parameters. Agent receives no context for selection.

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