inspect_visu_project

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

The description implies a read-only, non-destructive operation by stating 'Read current state from disk', but does not explicitly mention safety, possible errors (e.g., file not found), or permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 sentence explaining the core functionality followed by a clear use-case sentence. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with action and details.

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 no output schema, the description lists the main components returned (stations, datapoints, etc.) and mentions the all_datapoints parameter's impact on size. It provides a reasonable overview, though it could specify the output structure more clearly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only reiterates the general purpose without elaborating on parameter usage or edge cases.

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 it reads the current state of a VISUDesigner .lvp project from disk, listing specific components (stations, datapoints, languages, text list names, schemes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like inspect_project by targeting VISUDesigner projects and mentioning a specific use case before apply_visu_changes.

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 recommends using this tool before apply_visu_changes, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives for similar tasks like inspect_project.

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