inspect_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Detects'/'inspect' strongly implies a non-mutating read, which is useful, but the description never confirms zero side effects, says what happens when the project lacks instruction files, or explains whether projectRoot defaults to the working directory.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the detected artefact list immediately after; there is no filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description has to convey return content — it partially does by naming the three things it detects. But 'AgentCanon status' is left undefined and failure/empty-result behavior is unaddressed, leaving gaps for a tool an agent may call first in a workflow.

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% for the single optional projectRoot parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and the description adds nothing about path resolution, defaults, or relative-vs-absolute handling. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Detects') plus an enumerated resource set: repository structure, existing agent instruction files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .cursor/rules), and AgentCanon status. That enumeration makes it distinguishable from siblings like list_rules or import_existing_rules, though it never explicitly says how it differs.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a read-only discovery step before import_existing_rules or upsert_rule, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. With six sibling tools, an explicit routing sentence would have earned a higher score.

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