Probe project config

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'without writing config.' It adds 'through the local agent' but doesn't explain what probing entails (e.g., file traversal, env detection). No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the annotation, but there is no contradiction.

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 entire description is one sentence that states the action and constraint without redundant words. It is easily parsed and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the probe returns or what information is gathered. It only says 'probe a project directory,' leaving the outcome ambiguous. For a tool with two parameter names and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate for full autonomous invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The names 'root_path' and 'project_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics about how they are used or whether they're optional. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 the verb 'probe' with 'project directory' as the resource, and qualifies with 'without writing config' to signal read-only inspection. While 'probe' is somewhat vague, it clearly distinguishes this from config-writing siblings like apply_config_change/upsert_project_config. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project_config, but the purpose is reasonably clear.

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?

The phrase 'without writing config' implies a safe read-only use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_project_config or validate_project_pipeline. No exclusions or alternatives are named. The usage is implied from the wording.

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