check_project

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

The description discloses that it traverses files and runs rules, implying a potentially expensive operation. However, it does not mention performance impact, permissions needed, error handling (e.g., invalid directory), or side effects (none expected).

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is not overly verbose, though the initial sentence could be more concise.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and output summary well. It lacks details on failure modes or exact return structure, but is largely complete.

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 only parameter 'directory' is explained in the description (path to scan, defaults to current directory), adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. Schema coverage is 0% but the description compensates.

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 for code quality, listing specific metrics like file counts, language distribution, error counts, top 10 files, and overall score. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_file (single file) and list_rules (list rules).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_file for single files, review_diff for diffs). The description only explains what it does, not the decision criteria.

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