Detect Projects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds that adapters are matched to projects, but does not describe output format, error behavior, or whether it follows ignore files. With annotations present, the score is baseline.

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 sentence with ten words, front-loaded with the key action and object. There is zero filler or redundant content, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of project roots with adapter names). The purpose is clear, but the absence of return-value details and minimal behavioral context leaves gaps, making it adequate but not complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including clear definitions for repoRoot and excludeProjectRoots. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('detect') and a specific resource ('project roots and matching adapters') within a repository. It distinguishes the tool's main function but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like list_adapters or list_project_detection_rules.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_project_detection_rules or analyze_repository. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or context for when this tool is preferred.

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