Inspect a project for deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: the verified-vs-unknown fact model with file provenance, the split of env var NAMES into build-time and run-time, and the explicit guarantee that .env files are reported present but never opened. 'Changes nothing' duplicates readOnlyHint, but the privacy and output-shape disclosure is substantive.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the file-type enumeration placed inline rather than as a separate list, and the sequencing instruction comes last where it is easy to find. The parenthetical inventory of manifests, lockfiles, CI workflows, etc. is dense but each item clarifies inspection scope.

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 read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter and a declared output schema, the description covers scope, result structure, privacy behavior, and workflow position. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the absolute-path form and the default to the open project, so the description adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Reads a project folder on this machine') and enumerates exactly what it inspects and returns (facts table, deployable apps, env var names). This is clearly distinguishable from the generate/validate/deploy siblings, which mutate or act on a kit rather than reading facts.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance — 'Use it first, in phase 1 of setting up a Plesk deployment' — which tells the agent when to reach for it relative to the rest of the workflow. It stops short of naming which sibling to call next or stating 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.