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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without returning file contents', which is a key behavioral detail for safety and privacy. It also implies read-only inspection ('Inspect local artifact sizes') and scope ('local'), though it does not explicitly state lack of side effects or permission requirements.

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, concise sentence that starts with the action and lists specific outputs, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is inspected and highlights the non-content-returning behavior. It does not specify return format, but the listed outputs ('sizes, extension totals, largest files, dependency manifest names') give a reasonable picture. The sibling relationship is not addressed, but the description is sufficiently self-contained.

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% with the parameter description 'Local project directory; no URLs'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming the local nature, so the schema already handles parameter meaning adequately.

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 clear action ('Inspect') and specific resource ('local artifact sizes, extension totals, largest files, and dependency manifest names'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool inspect_manifest by covering broader artifact metrics rather than just manifests.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_manifest. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral boundary: it does not return contents or versions, and it only works with 'recognized' manifests. However, it does not describe what 'bounded metadata' includes, how unrecognized manifests are handled, or any potential side effects, leaving gaps for a read-only tool.

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, tightly written sentence (17 words) that front-loads the verb and resource and includes a crucial negation. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description under-explains key aspects: it does not define 'bounded metadata,' does not elaborate on parameter usage, and does not describe the return structure. The 'recognized' qualifier also leaves ambiguity about supported manifest types. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'project' or 'file' beyond their names. Both are required but their exact semantics (paths, IDs, formats) are unclear. The description mentions 'local dependency manifest' but does not map it to the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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's purpose: 'Inspect bounded metadata for one recognized local dependency manifest.' It specifies a distinct verb ('inspect'), resource ('dependency manifest'), and scope ('bounded metadata'), explicitly excluding contents and versions. This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'inspect_artifacts' by resource type, making the purpose 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 context (for local dependency manifests) and a limitation ('without returning its contents or versions'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling 'inspect_artifacts' or provide exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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