Inspect Three.js project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Reads', indicating a non-destructive operation, and enumerates the data sources. However, it omits details about potential side effects, prerequisites, or how the returned data is structured.

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 a single sentence that lists all major resources inspected, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Reads'.

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 tool reads multiple aspects of a project, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, no usage context is provided, and with overlapping sibling tools like check_project and report_diagnostics, the description leaves ambiguity about when this tool is preferred.

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 description does not mention the sole parameter projectId. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no description of what projectId represents beyond the schema's name and pattern, and the description fails to compensate.

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 states a specific verb 'Reads' and enumerates the exact resources (scene, script, diagnostics, recent human edit operations), clearly defining the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like report_diagnostics, which focuses only on diagnostics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_project or report_diagnostics. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be invoked.

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