gms2_inspect_project

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure; it explicitly states 'Read-only — does not modify any files,' which is the key trait an agent needs before invocation. It also discloses the JSON summary format of the return value. Missing finer error-case behavior (e.g., malformed or missing project files), but for a simple read tool the core behavioral profile is covered.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The opening verb is front-loaded, the return contract is stated in one clause, and the safety disclosure is appended concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description covers the operation, the result shape, and the read-only guarantee. The only notable gap is error handling behavior for missing or invalid .yyp files, which is a minor omission for such a low-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single yypPath parameter, so the schema already documents path semantics; the description restates 'project file' without adding new detail about allowed path forms or constraints. Baseline 3 applies because coverage is high and the description does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (GameMaker Studio 2 .yyp project file), and enumerates the return payload (project name, asset counts by type, object/script names). No sibling tool targets GameMaker project inspection, so it is cleanly distinguished from the navmesh/physics/scene/save/actor siblings.

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?

Usage is implied clearly: the agent should call this when it needs an overview of a GameMaker project file. However, the description never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it, so there is no direct guidance beyond the purpose statement.

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