inspect_contam_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 but only states it provides a 'quick structural summary.' It fails to specify return format, whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), potential errors, or what 'structural' encompasses (e.g., zones, flows, controls).

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?

Single, efficient sentence with no waste. It front-loads the usage context ('Use this when...') and immediately specifies both the action and target file type. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (single path parameter) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the basics but leaves gaps. It should specify what structural elements are summarized (e.g., building zones, airflow paths) and the output format since no output schema exists to document the return value.

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%, leaving the projectPath parameter undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by specifying the target is a 'CONTAM .prj file,' giving clear semantic meaning to the path parameter despite the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the action (structural summary) and resource (CONTAM .prj file). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like run_contam_simulation and update_contam_project_references by positioning it as a preliminary inspection step.

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?

It provides explicit timing guidance ('before editing or running it'), implicitly directing users toward diagnose_contam_project for troubleshooting or run_contam_simulation for execution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with diagnose_contam_project or mention when to prefer those alternatives.

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