ras_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'No HEC-RAS install needed' and describes optional expansions in behavior. The verb 'Inspect' implies read-only, and it does not suggest any side effects. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but information-rich, front-loaded with 'Inspect a HEC-RAS project' followed by a structured list of returned items. It is slightly long but each phrase adds value, and there is no fluff. It could be slightly more scannable, but overall it earns a 4.

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's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what is returned and how optional parameters alter the output. It covers the main project elements, boundary condition details, and the behavior of include_values, making it a complete reference for an agent without needing additional context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'plan' and 'include_values' by explaining what detailed boundary conditions are included and how include_values affects output. This exceeds the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 tool 'Inspect a HEC-RAS project' and enumerates specific items returned (plans, geometries, flow files, boundary conditions, current plan, Ras.exe path). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ras_run or ras_plot.

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 description provides clear context about what can be inspected and optional behaviors (e.g., passing 'plan' for detailed boundary conditions, include_values for full hydrograph). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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