hcl_inspect_project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds project-level scope and the fact that it returns devices and links, but it does not add deeper behavioral context such as error behavior or path requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It states the action, object, scope, and non-mutating constraint efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. However, it leaves the parameter semantics and sibling-routing guidance under-specified.

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%, and the only parameter, project_path, is not explained in the description. The phrase 'one saved HCL project' implies that the parameter selects a project, but it provides no details about the expected path format or validation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resources ('devices and links') within a clearly bounded scope ('one saved HCL project'). This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as hcl_list_devices, hcl_open_project, or hcl_backend_topology.

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 'without changing it' implies read-only inspection, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool instead of alternatives like hcl_list_devices or hcl_open_project. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing cues.

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