dev_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds two meaningful traits: 'file-based only' (implying read-only, local operation) and 'fast' (performance). However, it lacks depth—no mention of error handling, what happens if the workspace is invalid, or whether it caches results. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive context.

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 with no fluff. It leads with the core purpose, then appends the behavioral notes. Every word contributes; nothing is redundant or unnecessary. This is an exemplary concise 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essentials: what it does, the parameter, and some behavior. However, it omits usage context—when to choose this over siblings—and lacks deeper behavioral details like edge cases or side effects. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete without referencing alternatives.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'workspace' as the location where the project lives, which clarifies the parameter's role. The default '.' is also consistent. While it doesn't detail accepted path formats, for a single optional parameter this is sufficient and adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 'detect' and the resource 'project at workspace', and specifies the outputs: languages, ecosystems, and evidence files. It distinguishes itself from a tautology and conveys a specific capability, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dev_project_info.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Fast, file-based only' hints at scope and performance but does not state when a developer should pick this over siblings such as dev_health or dev_project_info, nor does it mention exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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