Inspect project

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only' while adding more detail than the annotation by listing exactly what the analysis covers (stack detection, scripts, tests, config). This helps the agent predict the tool's output without contradicting the annotations.

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 verb and resource, then lists specific outputs. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it states read-only behavior and enumerates the expected analysis results. It could be more complete by noting depth limitations or return format, but those are partially covered by the schema and the list is enough for the agent to proceed.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so parameter semantics are already clear. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning; it only describes the overall tool behavior, which does not compensate beyond the schema's 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 uses a specific verb 'Analyze' with a clear resource ('project's structure') and enumerates concrete aspects (directory tree, stack, package manager). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like read_relevant_files (which reads file contents) and run_project_checks (which executes checks).

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 use for initial project understanding by listing what it analyzes, and the 'Read-only' phrase hints at safety. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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