inspect_project_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool reports but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or whether it modifies any files. The term 'inspect' implies safety, but more explicit behavioral disclosure (e.g., no side effects) would improve transparency.

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 description is a single sentence that efficiently packs all relevant information: target, reports produced, and key condition (no credentials). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the tool does and what it returns. It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., JSON) but is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description essentially repeats the schema's description of archive_path. No additional semantic detail is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'local archive directory or .r402ar tar offline'. It lists the reports produced (digest, secrets, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like export_project_archive and verify_project_archive by emphasizing offline inspection without Cloud credentials.

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 description explicitly says 'without Cloud credentials' and refers to local paths, indicating this tool is for offline inspection. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but the context from siblings and the clear scope imply when to use it.

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