project_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and the statement about notes being omitted by default discloses a default behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, or mention any prerequisites or error behaviors. The disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the important note about notes. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is concise and immediately informative.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is read (revision, sections, harmony, tracks) and the optional notes behavior. It does not detail the return format or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the fact that the schema defines the parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It does so for include_notes by explaining the default and the rationale for requesting notes. It doesn't explicitly mention project_id, but that is self-explanatory from the schema and the tool's purpose. The description adds value for at least one parameter, which is significant given zero coverage.

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 clearly states the tool reads 'current revision, sections, harmony and tracks,' giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from editing or import tools by using 'read,' and mentions the default omission of notes, which is a distinct behavior. It doesn't explicitly name siblings but the purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 usage for inspecting project state, and the note about 'request them for precise edits' gives some context on when to include notes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_validate or project_list, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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