detect_project_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. 'Detect' implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not state that it reads files without modifying anything, what evidence it looks for (beyond the listed types), or what the return value represents. This lack of detail is a gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the detected environment types. There is no wasted wording or repetition of the tool name.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description must explain the input and output behavior. It covers what environments are detected but not what 'root' refers to, how detection works, or what the returned evidence looks like. For a tool with one parameter, this is incomplete.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'root' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain that 'root' should be a path to a project directory, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's meaning and format. With a single parameter, this is easily compensable but was not addressed.

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 'Detect' and clearly enumerates the resources: Android Compose, Android Views, Flutter, and web evidence. It unambiguously distinguishes itself from the icon-focused sibling tools.

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 implies usage when needing to know a project's framework/environment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No siblings overlap with detection, so it is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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