inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans and analyzes specific project areas, then asks for current and target state, and finally outputs project_context.json. The verb 'Scannt' implies read-only analysis, and the process is clearly described, though it does not explicitly mention whether it overwrites existing files or requires permissions.

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 well-structured with bullet lists for the analysis areas and the questions asked. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the tool's input (via questions), the analysis scope (listed project components), and the output file. While the exact structure of project_context.json is not specified, the listed analysis areas give a strong indication of its contents. For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that currentState and targetState are asked as follow-up questions, matching the schema, but it does not provide additional format or syntax details beyond what the schema already states.

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 scans the current Laravel project and captures its state, listing specific components (models, migrations, controllers, routes, Vue components). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools plan and export, which clearly have different purposes.

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 implies the tool is used when an inventory of the current project state is needed before planning, but it does not explicitly state when to use inspect versus plan or export. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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