scan_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates the tool scans a directory and returns a fingerprint, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, performance considerations (e.g., depth limits), or required permissions. The behavioral disclosure is minimal and insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 concise sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return value. No extraneous words; every sentence serves a clear function.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's input (path and depth) and output (project fingerprint). It could be more specific about the structure of the fingerprint, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'path' and 'maxDepth' are described). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 scans a project directory to detect languages, frameworks, structure, and dependencies, returning a project fingerprint. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('project directory'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_file_content' or 'get_git_context'.

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 obtaining a project overview for context-aware assistance but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_git_context' for git-specific info or 'get_file_content' for single files. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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