Metis — Detect Projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only scan (detecting repos and folders), but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur. A direct statement would be better.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, context, and parameter detail. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and parameter. Since an output schema exists (not shown), the absence of return value explanation is acceptable. It is adequate for the tool's simple nature.

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 single parameter scan_path is described with its purpose ('absolute path to scan') and default behavior ('parent of METIS_RC_ROOT'). This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only has a default and title.

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 it scans for 'unregistered git repos and article folders', which is a specific verb-resource combination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scanning tools like scan_folder_for_intent or scan_inbox.

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?

It explicitly mentions onboarding as the use case and directs to call create_project() for registration. While it doesn't list when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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