Add project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the no-op behavior with added:false, the requirement that the path exists and is a directory, that git is not required, and the return value structure. This is thorough and non-obvious behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then covers constraints and return behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains when to use it, constraints, edge-case behavior (no-op), and return format. It is comprehensive and leaves no 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that the path must be a directory (not a file), that a git repo is NOT required, and explaining the no-op behavior for already-known directories, which enriches the 'dir' parameter's meaning.

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 verb 'Remember' and the resource 'a directory as a project', explicitly comparing to the sidebar 'PROJECTS ＋' button. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the creation action and what is returned (id/path/name/color).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (equivalent to sidebar button, add a directory) and states constraints (path must exist and be a directory, no git repo needed). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a simple creation tool.

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