project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does reasonably well: it enumerates the returned fields (git dirty state, entry points, build/test/lint commands, config files) and notes the cost advantage of a single aggregated call. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/side-effect free, nor anything about the effect of the max_bytes cap on truncation.

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 scoping statement is front-loaded, and the enumeration is dense but every clause earns its place by telling the agent what it will get back. The closing comparative sentence justifies the single-call design in six words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return contents, and it does so thoroughly enough for an agent to decide and call correctly. Combined with the fully documented input schema and self-evident read-only nature, nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (cwd, deps, max_bytes, max_files) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about any parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('orient yourself in an unfamiliar repository') and exhaustively enumerates the resource it returns: languages, package manager, dependencies, frameworks, scripts, entry points, commands, git state, config files. That content list makes it clearly distinguishable in practice from fs_list, search_files, or git, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 states a clear use context ('unfamiliar repository', 'ONE call') and contrasts with the alternative approach ('cheaper than exploring the tree by hand'). However it never names a sibling tool or states when not to use it (e.g. when you only need one targeted file read), so no exclusions are given.

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