Inspect Micro project settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description aligns with those annotations and adds scoping detail about the linked project and the specific settings read, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the verb, resource, and scope efficiently without repeating the title or 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?

For a low-complexity read tool with one optional parameter, a strong annotation set, and an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the linked-project scope and the exact data being read; the schema handles the path parameter and the output schema handles return values.

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 the schema fully documents the path parameter as the Micro project directory with a default to the server working directory. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Read,' and names the exact resource: 'the linked project's visibility and authenticated caller authority.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutators like micro_visibility_set and from status/records tools. The title reinforces the inspection purpose.

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 when to use the tool — when you need to inspect visibility or caller authority — but provides no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives. Given the large sibling list with related tools like micro_visibility_set and micro_members, explicit exclusion would improve clarity.

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