inspect_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content but discloses no behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs reads only.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise and to the point, though could be slightly more compact.

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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers what the tool returns. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral context like read-only hint, making it moderately complete.

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 single parameter (project_id) has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 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 the tool returns a compact readiness/status snapshot for one project, with specific items like enabled features, current limits, and pending approvals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_task or inspect_swarm, which focus on different aspects.

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 usage for getting an overall status snapshot of a single project, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_task or inspect_quality, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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