projectbrain_inspect_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'inspect' (implying read-only), but does not confirm side effects, authorization needs, or what 'local output policy' entails. The description is too brief to be informative.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous information. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less useful than a slightly longer description would be.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or the behavior of inspection. It does not, leaving the agent without knowledge of the output format or content.

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 input schema has one parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage, but the description adds only minimal context: it mentions the policy is for an imported project. No details on parameter format, constraints, or how it affects the inspection.

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 action (inspect) and the resource (local output policy for an imported project), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different operations like adding, archiving, or listing claims.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites for having an imported project or when inspecting a policy is appropriate. The description is silent on usage context.

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