Scan Messy Novel Project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions duplicate detection, encoding identification, and classification with confidence scores, which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the scan is read-only, whether files are modified, or how the confidence score is derived. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main action ('scan') and enumerates key behaviors. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or output format beyond stating 'classification with confidence score'. For a complex scanning tool that detects duplicates, encoding, and classifies files, more detail about the result structure would be helpful. The core purpose is covered, but the output behavior is underspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions duplicate detection, which aligns with the detectDuplicates parameter, but it does not add extra meaning about the path or when to disable duplicate detection. It does not go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the entire messy novel project and lists specific actions: detect duplicates, identify encoding, and classify files into 4 groups with confidence scores. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like story_get_project_info or story_auto_refactor_structure.

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 phrase 'messy project' implies it should be used when a project is disorganized, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. It lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools that might serve similar purposes.

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