Discover projects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: the scan mutates internal state by populating self.project_map. It also discloses the scope limit ('immediate subdirectories', i.e. non-recursive). That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though it omits whether repeated calls overwrite or merge the existing map.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scoping behavior before the state-effect. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the returned project_map, and for a zero-parameter scan it covers the key behaviors: what is scanned and what internal state changes. The missing piece is routing guidance against the numerous sibling discovery/load tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure, and the empty schema with additionalProperties=false is consistent.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource and scope: 'Scan self.path for immediate subdirectories containing a .git folder', which is far more precise than the title alone. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as repository_manager_get_project_map or repository_manager_load_projects_from_yaml, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling discovery/load tools (get_project_map, load_projects_from_yaml, get_workspace_projects). The phrase 'Populates and returns self.project_map' hints at the use case but never states when an agent should pick this tool over those siblings.

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