inspect_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses nothing: no pagination, no output shape, no indication of what 'inspect' actually returns or whether a revision other than the latest changes results.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with no filler, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of specificity — it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does not. A read-only inspection tool with two undocumented params and a null revision default needs more than a noun list to be callable with confidence.

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 0% for both parameters. The description never mentions project_id (the required scoping key) or revision (its format, how to obtain one, or what leaving it null does), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 pairs a verb ('Inspect') with an enumerated list of resources (objects, volumes, resource IDs, instances, plates, bounds, revision history), so the general purpose is inferable. However, it never says this operates on a project, and the sprawling resource list reads more like an inventory dump than a scoped statement of what the tool returns, so it does not clearly separate itself from siblings like get_environment or restore_revision.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description includes 'revision history' while a sibling restore_revision exists, yet nothing tells the agent whether this tool reads history or is the correct entry point versus open_project/get_environment.

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