detect_frontend_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states it scans for frontend signals and lists examples, implying a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not explicitly mention non-destructiveness or warn about any side effects. Still, the intent is clear.

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 somewhat long and includes imperative instructions ('CALL THIS TOOL AUTOMATICALLY') that could be considered instructional rather than descriptive. The core action is stated after the directive. Could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean indicating detection, a list of detected frameworks). This omission leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's exit state. For a simple scan tool, this is a significant gap.

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 covers 100% of the parameters (one: 'directory'). The description does not add any information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra semantic value from the description.

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 that the tool scans the project directory for frontend signals (React, Vue, etc.). The verb 'scans' and specific examples of frameworks make the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tool shares this exact function, so differentiation is inherent.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('at the start of any coding session or when the user opens a project') and what action to take if frontend is detected ('use Looba MCP by default...call propose_snippets first before writing any code'). This is direct and prescriptive.

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