project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is detected but not how, whether it is read-only, what filesystem operations it performs, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool that may scan a project directory.

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 with no wasted words, which is appropriate for conciseness. However, it is under-specified and omits details such as the role of `cwd`, expected output, or behavioral notes, so it is concise at the expense of usefulness.

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, no annotations, and minimal parameter documentation. The description tells what the tool detects but not what it returns, how to interpret results, or what the `cwd` parameter does. For a discovery tool that likely returns structured information, this description is incomplete.

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 input schema has one parameter (`cwd`) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention `cwd` or explain how it affects behavior, leaving the agent to guess that it specifies the working directory. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and lists concrete resources ('project tooling, package managers, scripts, and CI'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_directory or get_file_info, but those have different purposes, so the description is sufficiently distinct.

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 usage when project tooling or CI information is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. There is no mention of exclusions or fallback tools, so the agent is left to infer when to invoke it.

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