Metis — Connect Project Folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explains that the tool walks the folder recursively, adds files with recognized extensions to a `tracked_files` table, and includes a safety limit (max_files). This is adequate disclosure for a registration operation.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear separation of purpose, behavior, and parameter details. It is slightly repetitive in the first two sentences, but overall efficient.

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 the moderate complexity, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage flow, parameter meanings, and behavioral constraints. An output schema exists, so return values are documented separately. It lacks error scenarios but is otherwise 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter: folder_path (absolute path), label (short label with example), and max_files (safety limit with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Register all relevant files in a project folder so Metis can read them.' It lists recognized extensions and distinguishes from the sibling tool `read_file()` by noting this is a one-time setup operation per project.

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 explicitly says 'Call this once per project; after that, use read_file() to read any individual file.' This gives clear usage context and suggests an alternative, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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