detect_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating exactly which configuration aspects are inspected while avoiding any implication of mutation. It does not disclose failure modes or behavior on unrecognized projects, but those are minor given the read-only, idempotent nature.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential purpose first and then lists the specific configuration categories. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the operation, the target, and the expected output categories. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit list of configuration aspects, though it does not describe the result format or error behavior if no project configuration is detectable.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies here because the description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the empty input schema is already fully descriptive.

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 the specific verb 'Detect' with a clear resource ('current project configuration') and enumerates the concrete aspects it covers: framework, package manager, component paths, and shadcn setup. This makes the tool clearly distinct from the sibling component-focused tools like list_components, search_components, and get_component_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 description makes the tool's purpose clear enough that an agent could infer when to call it, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools or suggest a workflow sequence like 'run before component operations.'

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