Inspect a Quarto project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a useful behavioral guarantee: 'The output is passed through without field changes,' and clarifies the project-versus-file scope distinction. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or 'no side effects,' but 'Return ... inspect JSON' plus the passthrough guarantee strongly imply a non-mutating inspection operation.

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, front-loaded sentences deliver the primary action and scope first, then a precise output behavior guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple, read-style tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool returns, its scope, and pass-through behavior. Without annotations or an output schema, it could go further by explicitly stating that no project modifications occur, but the inspect semantics and passthrough statement make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter documentation, including descriptions for projectId and input. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the project-versus-file distinction, so the schema carries the weight and the description meets the baseline.

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 ('Return') and resource (

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 makes the use case clear by indicating the tool returns Quarto's inspect JSON for either a project or a specific input file, which distinguishes it from siblings like quarto_create_project, quarto_render, and quarto_defaults_get/set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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