inspect_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure; the verb 'Get' indicates a read/no-side-effect operation. It does not disclose output structure, error conditions, or whether container information requires a running Docker daemon, but for a getter this is minimally adequate.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning and the description is easy to scan.

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 is a simple one-parameter getter, and the description states the main return contents. However, with no output schema or annotation context, it leaves the exact shape of 'project details' and the container list unspecified, and it does not clarify how this relates to sibling inspect tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The word 'project' in 'project details' hints that projectName identifies the target project, but the description adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond the property name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project details and Docker containers'), clearly identifying what the tool returns and distinguishing it from list/create/destroy project siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives like inspect_app, but the project scope is clear enough for an agent to separate it from those tools.

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 phrasing implies use when a caller needs project-level details and associated Docker containers, but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with inspect_app or list_projects. The context is inferable rather than stated.

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