Inspect project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds value beyond them: the sha256 is included specifically to let later calls detect file changes, and the disk-only read semantics are spelled out. It does not say what happens on a missing, malformed, or non-Kdenlive file, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus the read-only constraint are front-loaded. The stale-read caveat is placed last where it reads naturally as a caveat rather than burying the purpose.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is not obliged to explain return values. It nonetheless covers the salient result fields and the on-disk freshness caveat, leaving only failure behavior (invalid path, corrupt project) unaddressed for a low-complexity single-parameter tool.

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 single path parameter is already documented as an absolute .kdenlive path, so the schema carries the burden. The description only implies what the path points at ("a Kdenlive project file") without adding validation rules or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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?

"Summarize a Kdenlive project file" gives a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the exact contents (versions, profile, frame rate, bin clip count, per-sequence duration and track counts). An agent can distinguish this overview/summary tool from the narrower siblings get_timeline and list_project_media without opening any schema.

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?

States the operating mode clearly ("without modifying it", "Reads the file on disk only") and gives a concrete exclusion: unsaved changes in a running Kdenlive are not visible, which tells the agent when this tool will produce stale results. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_timeline or list_project_media, so routing to a narrower tool remains an inference.

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