Inspect Project

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to disclose safety. However, it adds minimal behavior context beyond 'inspect' and does not explain what happens if project_root is omitted or the structure of the response.

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 one short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail to be fully effective. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical information about parameters and usage.

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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of 'repository structure' or 'governance controls,' nor does it describe the response format or behavior when the parameter is missing.

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 does not mention the sole parameter 'project_root' at all. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on the parameter's purpose or format.

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 verb 'Inspect' and the resources 'repository structure and detected governance controls.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_ssot_links' and 'evaluate_control_candidate' by focusing on project-level inspection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description is minimal and does not provide context for appropriate use or when to choose a sibling tool.

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