preview_project_intake

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the report is path-redacted, the proposal is non-mutating, and the template is not persisted. It does not describe the full output structure, but for a read-only inspection tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences with the main operation front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying template persistence, which is not fully covered by the annotations.

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, but the description still names the two return artifacts: a path-redacted report and an organization proposal. Combined with the strong parameter documentation, this is mostly complete. A minor gap is that the description does not clarify how the project is selected or what 'bounded' means in practice.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear explanation in the schema. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspect a Premiere project against a facility intake template and return a report plus proposal. It distinguishes itself from sibling inspection tools by emphasizing the intake-template focus and the non-mutating nature of the operation.

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?

It clearly conveys the intended use case: validating or previewing a project against an explicit facility intake template. It does not name alternative tools, but the non-mutating and no-persistence constraints provide a clear exclusion for any task requiring actual project changes.

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