project_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not solely responsible for the safety profile. It still adds real value beyond them: it enumerates the inspected state, states the pushed-commit precondition for revision-source suggestions, and explicitly excludes commit/push/fetch, which the openWorldHint alone would not clarify.

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 tight sentences with the verb and scope front-loaded, followed by the behavioral caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return values is not strictly necessary, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The gap is input-side: with 0% schema coverage, nothing explains what localProjectRoot should point at or how projectId/locale affect behavior.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about localProjectRoot (the required path), projectId, or the locale enum. An agent must infer that localProjectRoot is the repo path to inspect with no textual support.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read-only local Git inspection') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: HEAD, branch, upstream remote/ref, GitHub repository, dirty state, tracking-ref membership. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as project_bind or codespace_prepare, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only inspection framing and the note that a revision source is only suggested for pushed commits, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus project_bind or environment_check. The 'never commits, pushes or fetches' line sets a boundary but is a capability disclaimer rather than a when-to-use rule.

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