plc_inspect_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'without modifying it' largely restates structured data. The one piece of added context is 'bounded container summary', which hints that the summary may be truncated, but it does not say how or at what limit, nor what a 'container' means here.

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?

A single tight clause pair with the read-only guarantee front-loaded and the output contract second. No filler wording and nothing buried.

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 low complexity, has full annotation coverage, and ships an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, the total absence of path semantics and of guidance distinguishing it from the many project/file siblings leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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% and the single 'path' parameter gets no elaboration in the description — no indication of absolute vs. relative paths, allowed file types, or what happens with an invalid path. With one undocumented parameter the description should have compensated and does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a local file') and states the outputs it produces (digest and container summary). It implicitly contrasts with mutating siblings like plc_export_project or plc_commit_changes via 'without modifying it', though it never names an alternative directly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: no statement of what kind of files are in scope, when to prefer this over plc_compare_files or plc_ide_export_active, or any prerequisites. The only usage signal is the implied read-only inspection framing.

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