raskadr_inspect_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without writing files', which signals a read-only operation and the absence of side effects. However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or prerequisites beyond having the project name, which is a minor gap for an inspection 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It immediately states what the tool inspects and its read-only nature. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for agent consumption.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the resource, and the key safety trait. Minor omissions—such as expected return structure or behavior when the project doesn't exist—are not critical for an inspect operation, but the lack of explicit sibling differentiation slightly reduces completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%—the single parameter 'project' has a clear description ('Exact project folder name returned by raskadr_list_projects'). The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Inspect' and the exact resource ('tracks, segment ids, and timing for one CapCut project'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like raskadr_list_projects (which lists projects) and raskadr_plan_edit (which likely edits). The read-only qualifier ('without writing files') further clarifies its role.

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 this tool is used to inspect a specific project's details, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like raskadr_check_compatibility or raskadr_plan_edit. There are no 'use when' or 'instead of' statements, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between related tools.

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