detect-project-context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, or any potential side effects. The agent is left without crucial context about the tool's behavior, especially given the lack of an output schema.

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, focused sentence that starts with the action verb 'Detects' followed by the specific resources. It contains no extraneous information and is easy to parse quickly, scoring top marks for conciseness and front-loaded structure.

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, the description is brief but incomplete. Since there is no output schema, it should state what the tool returns (e.g., version numbers, package names) to help the agent use the result. It also lacks usage guidance, making the description insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 already provides a clear description for the single 'cwd' parameter ('The current working directory to check.'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning by referring to 'current project,' which aligns with the schema, but does not introduce new details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 tool's function: detecting versions of specific frameworks (React Native, Expo, React Navigation, Ignite) in the current project. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve-library or compare-api-versions, which focus on different actions.

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 when to use it: when you need to know the versions of these libraries in the current project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool's name and purpose.

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