Inspect project

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral content by naming the categories of data returned (dependencies, plugins and their contributions, assets, build size), which is real information given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about cost, whether a build must exist first, or how stale/incremental the summary is.

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?

It is a single compact sentence fragment with no filler or repetition, and the most important token ('Summary of the project') is front-loaded. It loses a point only for being a fragment that reads as a return-value label rather than a complete instructional statement.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the main remaining gap is the absence of an output schema, and the description does compensate by listing the categories returned. What is missing is any guidance on placement in a workflow relative to build, list_assets, or run_tests. Adequate but not 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?

There is a single optional parameter ('root') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it, including the default behavior. The description adds no syntax, path, or resolution detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 is a noun phrase ('Summary of the project: dependencies, plugins and their contributions, assets, last build size') rather than a verb+resource statement, so it echoes the title 'Inspect project' more than it defines an action. It does enumerate the contents returned, which helps an agent see it is an aggregate overview, but it never says 'returns a summary' explicitly. Sibling differentiation is partial: list_assets overlaps with the 'assets' element, and nothing explains that this tool rolls them up rather than listing them.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call inspect_project or list_assets first, nor whether this is a cheap orientation call before build/run_tests. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'Summary'.

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