glm_5_inspect_project_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It conveys 'read-only' and 'bounded' behavior, but does not explain permissions required, error handling for unapproved directories, or what 'bounded' entails beyond maxDepth parameter.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core purpose and scope. No redundant 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a high-level overview. Missing details on parameter behavior, return format, and failure modes, making it insufficient for complete understanding.

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%. Description does not explain individual parameters (e.g., maxDepth, includeFileTree) beyond their names. No details on how projectPath validation works or effects of boolean flags.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'safely inspect an approved local project directory' and lists the types of information retrieved (file metadata, tree, package, Git-summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_job and inspect_workspace by specifying 'project directory' and 'read-only bounded'.

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?

Description implies usage for inspection but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites like 'approved' status or context for selecting this tool over similar inspect tools.

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