inspect_project_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still adds real value by clarifying that no project initialization is a prerequisite and that migration warnings are surfaced—context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then negative scope. The closing sentence about the return payload is largely redundant with the existing output schema, which is the only wasted wording.

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?

For a parameterless, closed-world read tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, exclusions, and prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ("Inspect") and resource ("local project storage layout and roots"), including the migration-warning scope. It is easily distinguished from siblings like initialize_project and migrate_project_layout, which are named directly.

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?

"Use before initialize_project or migrate_project_layout when layout is uncertain" names the alternatives and the exact condition that selects them. It also states the inverse exclusions (does not initialize, copy, or remove content) and the precondition (no initialized project required), leaving nothing to inference.

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