copilot_capture_readonly_inspection

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the 'compact' scope and confirms the report covers project/mixer/effects, which aligns with read-only behavior. No contradiction with annotations. It does not describe the report's structure, but the presence of an output schema lessens that need.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core action and scope ('compact project, mixer, and effect inspection report') appear immediately, and nothing else is stated that could be trimmed.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool: zero required parameters, all optional with defaults, full schema coverage, and an output schema that documents the return structure. Given those structured assets, the one-line description is largely sufficient for a read-only snapshot tool. A minor gap is that it never hints the report is for quick orientation or that params tune its depth, but this is secondary.

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% — all three parameters (only_used, max_plugins, parameter_limit) are documented with clear descriptions and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level information, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Capture') and a clear resource ('a compact project, mixer, and effect inspection report'). It indicates the report spans three domains, which is more precise than a bare tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling inspection tools (fl_get_project_summary, plugins_scan_loaded_plugins, fl_inspect_mixer_track), but the 'compact, combined report' framing offers some distinctiveness.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the roughly 200 siblings. It does not name alternatives, state exclusion conditions, or explain where a compact overview fits in the workflow. An agent deciding between this and fl_get_project_summary, plugins_inspect_parameter_map, or mix_get_plan gets no routing help.

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