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

The word 'scan' implies a read-only operation, and the description mentions it returns information (framework type, build commands, output directory, port). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for side effects, permissions, or error behaviors. It does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the project or what access is required, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise, with two well-structured sentences: the first states the core function and the second lists the outputs and usage context. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any unnecessary verbosity, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's role.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it names the inputs, the outputs (framework type, build commands, output directory, port), and the user scenario. The only missing element is the exact format or structure of the returned data, but since there is no output schema, this gap is minor and unlikely to impede correct usage.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, 'projectPath', including its type (string) and meaning ('Absolute path to the local project directory to scan'). The tool description adds no additional input-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the parameter semantics are adequately covered but not enhanced.

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 tool scans a local project directory and identifies the web framework, package manager, and monorepo tool, listing specific framework examples. This makes its purpose explicit and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on authentication, sandbox management, or CLI command execution.

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 description provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Use before deploying a web application to determine the correct build pipeline'), which gives context for the tool's role. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or situations where this tool should not be used, so it stops short of a full usage guideline.

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