inspect_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It clearly explains the output (structural inventory) and how parameters control verbosity (summary vs. full details). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like file locking or performance impact, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 with no wasted text. The first sentence states the core action and output, the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the output composition (classes, channels, networks, connections) and parameter behavior. It could be more specific about the exact return structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that omitting 'class_names' gives a summary, and that 'include_networks' and 'include_connections' have defaults and the latter requires the former. This helps an agent decide how to use parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('LASAL CLASS 2 project .lcp'), and clearly states the outcome: a complete structural inventory of classes, channels, networks, and connections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that apply changes or compile.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this before making any changes' to understand the project, providing clear context for when the tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tools implicitly serve different purposes.

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