Scan Messy Novel Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the scan detects duplicates, recognizes encoding, and classifies files with confidence scores, but it does not state whether files are modified, moved, or merely reported on, nor does it mention permissions or safety characteristics.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and outputs front-loaded. Every listed item earns its place by describing a concrete scan capability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a scan returns. It names the classification groups and confidence scores, which is helpful, but it does not describe the response structure, whether results are persisted, or how duplicate/encoding findings are reported.

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%, so both path and detectDuplicates are already documented in the input schema. The description implies that path is the project directory to scan and that duplicate detection is part of the operation, but it adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (scan) and resource (messy novel project), then lists concrete operations: duplicate detection, encoding recognition, and classification into four file groups with confidence scores. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as story_list_projects or story_get_project_info.

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 only contextual cue is that the project is 'messy', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this scan versus alternatives like story_list_projects, story_get_project_info, or story_init. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions are provided.

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