inspect_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: it clarifies that detected services are not proof of running processes and emphasizes that files are never executed, which is important behavioral information beyond the annotations. This prevents the agent from over-trusting the output. No contradictions with 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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, usage, and key caveats. It front-loads the core purpose and adds important warnings at the end. No filler. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and clear.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, what it might return (languages, scripts, ports, masked connection IDs), and important limitations (expectations vs. running processes). It does not detail output structure or error cases, but given the lack of output schema and simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 has only one parameter 'path' with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no description. The tool description does not explicitly explain what 'path' means, but the tool name and description imply it refers to a project directory. Since there is no explicit parameter breakdown, the description partially compensates by giving context (project discovery) but could be improved by stating 'path' should be a directory path. Given low schema coverage, the description carries some burden but does not fully specify semantics, so a 4 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 clearly states that this is a read-only project discovery tool and enumerates what it identifies: languages, package scripts, likely service ports, and masked database connection IDs. It uses a specific verb 'inspects' (implied) and resource 'project', and distinguishes itself from siblings like git_status and list_processes by its scope (project discovery) and read-only nature.

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 explicitly says 'Use first to understand configuration', which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool (as an initial discovery step). It does not name alternatives, but given the tool's unique role as a discovery tool among siblings (like http_request, db_query, list_processes), the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it. The admonition that detected services are expectations, not proof, also helps with usage expectations.

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