pre_flight_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'detects' and 'returns structured findings with recommendations', implying read-only analysis. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but 'scan' suggests non-destructive behavior. Additional context on output structure would strengthen transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key actions. Every word is meaningful, no fluff. Efficient and clear.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it detects, and what it returns (structured findings with recommendations). It is complete for the intended use case.

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% for the single parameter (project_path), so baseline is 3. The description adds that it scans an 'existing project directory' and defaults to MCP root, which aligns with the schema description. No extra semantics beyond schema are provided.

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 project directory and detects specific design elements (framework, font stack, etc.), with a clear verb 'Scan' and resource 'existing project directory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audit_accessibility' or 'detect_genre' by focusing on pre-flight design detection.

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 says 'before designing', providing clear context for when to use. It implies it should be used to gather existing settings before starting design work, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives.

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