register_project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens if the project already exists. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema metadata.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and parameters, and an output schema is present, but it omits potential edge-case behavior (e.g., overwriting existing projects, constraints on paths). For a simple registration tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema has no property descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description's Args section adds meaningful guidance: 'name' gets an example, 'paths' gets its purpose ('for auto-detection'), and 'description' is clarified. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a project') with a clear purpose: 'so the Brain can auto-detect it from the working directory.' This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like list_projects and memory retrieval 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 context is clear: use this when you want to register a project for auto-detection. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the intent is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed for a simple registration tool.

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