inspect_project_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is offline, requires no Cloud credentials, and reports a list of specific items (digest, secrets, etc.). This is fairly transparent, though it does not detail error handling or side effects.

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, grammatically correct sentence that conveys all essential information without superfluous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it reports, and its offline context. It could mention return format or error behavior but is largely complete for its complexity.

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 parameter. The description restates the same information as the schema description ('Local archive directory or .r402ar tar path.'), adding no new semantic value 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 tool inspects a local archive directory or tar file offline, reporting specific diagnostics. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('project archive'), and the scope ('offline, without Cloud credentials') distinguishes it from siblings like export_project_archive or verify_project_archive.

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 implies usage for offline diagnostics without credentials but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of when not to use it.

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