Local Project Sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('analyze project structure, generate module and function overview') but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it's read-only, what format the output is in, if it has side effects, performance considerations, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, but it might be overly brief given the lack of other contextual information. It efficiently states what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of analyzing project structure (which could involve parsing code, understanding dependencies, etc.), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the basic purpose, there's insufficient information about what the tool actually returns, how it handles different project types, or what 'module and function overview' entails. The description doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain how 'depth' or 'scope' affect the analysis, such as what 'depth=3' means in practice or how 'frontend' vs 'backend' scoping works.

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 the tool's purpose ('分析项目结构，生成模块和功能概览' - 'analyze project structure, generate module and function overview'), which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('project structure'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_project_files' or 'extract_function_definition' in terms of what makes this analysis unique versus just listing files.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this analysis is appropriate compared to 'list_project_files' for basic file listing or 'search_code_content' for searching within files. There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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