explore_project

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it always excludes build directories (node_modules, .git, dist), parses imports for JS/TS/TSX/JSX, and extracts declarations for common languages. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention error handling, performance implications, or authentication needs, but for a read-only exploration tool, the provided transparency is strong.

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 concise, consisting of four sentences that each add distinct information. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Lists all files...') and then expands on parsing and exclusions. No filler words or redundant statements. It could be slightly tighter by merging the parsing sentences, but overall it is efficient.

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 is moderately complex (parsing multiple languages, dependency analysis) with 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description omits the return format entirely—it does not specify whether the output is a list of file objects with size, imports, dependencies, or a summary. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the structure of the results. This is a significant gap that reduces the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying that build directories are always excluded and that the tool lists files with sizes, but it does not elaborate on the 'subDirectory' parameter or the 'includeHidden' impact beyond the schema. The description supplements the schema moderately but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 primary action: 'Lists all files in a directory with their sizes' and extends to parsing imports/exports for JS/TS/TSX/JSX, resolving dependency edges, and extracting similar declarations for other languages. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_files' (searching) and 'list_allowed_directories' (listing directories only).

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 the tool is for exploring project structure and dependency analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_files' or 'rename_file'. With five sibling tools, explicit guidance on exclusions (e.g., 'Use this when you need both file listing and dependency analysis, not just file search') would improve clarity.

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