warm_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: shared 100-per-hour resolution cap, npm/PyPI name resolution, unambiguous pinned-version matching, build/lint skipping, the 'not found' vs 'unresolved' status distinction, and the working-directory scope restriction. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are derivable from the schema.

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 core action and its effect on get_docs are front-loaded, and the packed semicolon clauses each carry distinct operational information (rate cap, version matching, tooling skipping, status semantics). It is dense rather than wasteful, though the single sprawling sentence is heavier than ideal.

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 cache-warming tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, scope, resolution behavior, and even return-column semantics (the status column and its 'not found'/'unresolved' values, plus 'same table as vibectx warm'). The remaining gap is that the full output table columns aren't enumerated, which for a one-parameter tool is minor.

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 dir parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by stating the read is confined to the server's working directory or a directory beneath it, reinforcing the sandbox constraint the schema only implies.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: it reads dependency manifests (package.json, pyproject.toml, requirements*.txt) and caches each dependency's primary docs so get_docs works offline. It explicitly names sibling get_docs and its effect on it, so an agent can distinguish it from get_docs/list_libraries without opening schemas.

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?

It clearly frames the use case (warming the cache for offline get_docs over the whole stack) and notes constraints like skipping build/lint tooling and sharing the 100-per-hour resolution cap with get_docs. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name a directly substitutable sibling, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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