Quick UI Project Inspection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that inspection is bounded and avoids recursive scans, which is important context beyond the schema, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe output/side effects.

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 wasted words. It is dense but appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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?

With two optional parameters, full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the inspection scope adequately. However, it does not explain what kind of result is returned or clarify read-only behavior, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, so both root and maxEntries are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general notion of bounded inspection and does not contribute additional parameter semantics.

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 specific operation (bounded filesystem inspection) and explicitly lists what it detects: app framework, reusable components, assets, icon/design packages and scripts. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as find_design_assets or review_ui.

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 a shallow, non-recursive scan but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is a quick initial survey rather than a deeper audit or asset search.

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