project_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool can surface a compiled timeline revealing edited timing and retimed captions, which is genuinely non-obvious context, but it says nothing about cost of the timeline compilation, project state fields, or revision format.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional capability. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence could be tightened to name the parameter explicitly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it only sketches them ('project state and revision'). Given the tool's modest complexity and a mostly-documented schema this is adequate, but an agent still lacks detail on what 'project state' contains and how revisions are identified.

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 only 50%: projectDir is documented in the schema, but includeTimeline has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that includeTimeline pulls in the compiled timeline for inspecting edited timing and retimed captions, giving the flag real semantic 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read project state and revision', plus a secondary clause about the compiled timeline. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like draft_inspect or revision_list that plausibly overlap in scope.

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 second sentence implies when to set includeTimeline ('to inspect edited timing and retimed captions'), which is useful conditional guidance for that flag. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement, and no mention of when the timeline should be omitted.

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