repo_inspect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the output categories (file tree, languages, build tools, binary assets, architecture summary), which implies a read-only scan, but it never states that it is non-mutating, nor does it disclose cost/scale behavior for a scan that may touch thousands of files, or whether results are cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, then a compact enumeration of outputs. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause conveys a distinct returned artifact.

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 enumeration of returned artifacts is the right compensating move and largely covers the return-value gap for a two-optional-parameter tool. What is missing is anything about scan cost/truncation behavior under maxFiles and the relationship to repo_get_architecture, leaving the agent to guess precedence.

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 100%, so both parameters (root, maxFiles) are already fully documented with defaults, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only the general notion of scanning a repository; it gives no additional meaning about how root interacts with detection or what happens when maxFiles is hit.

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 ("Inspect") and resource ("the workspace repository") and enumerates exactly what is produced: file tree, languages, build tools, binary assets, architecture summary. It is clearly distinct from binary/ROM-level siblings like rom_inspect or elf_inspect by scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling repo_get_architecture, which the enumerated "architecture summary" overlaps with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement that this is the entry-point scan before deeper repo_* tools, and no exclusion or alternative named (notably repo_get_architecture, repo_search_code, repo_find_dependencies). The agent must infer the workflow position from the sibling list alone.

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