inspect_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (only visible fields, only existing pages, requires model.bim) but says nothing about behavior when model.bim is absent or what the listing contains structurally.

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 no filler; the resource list comes before the scoping condition. It is dense but not padded, and every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level. It is incomplete on the one thing an agent must get right: what "name" must refer to and what happens on a missing or mismatched model.bim.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the single "name" parameter, yet it never says whether name is the project, folder, or PBIP file identifier. The regex-constrained string is left entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool whose only input is that name.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") with three concrete resources (visible model fields, existing pages, visual bindings) and a scoping condition (local PBIP with model.bim). This clearly separates it from the write-oriented siblings (create_dashboard, edit_layout). It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase "in a local PBIP with model.bim" implies a precondition for calling it, and the read-only listing framing implies it is the discovery step before edit_layout or validate_report. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternative is named.

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