detect_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states 'Scan' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 with two brief paragraphs. The first sentence summarizes the purpose, followed by a usage note and an Args section. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not describe return values, but the output schema is expected to handle that. Minor gap: no mention of edge cases like symlinks or large folders.

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%, so the description is crucial. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining scan_path is an absolute path and defaults to the parent of METIS_RC_ROOT. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Scan a folder for unregistered git repos and article folders,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling scanning tools by focusing on unregistered projects for onboarding.

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 provides explicit context: 'Useful for onboarding' and instructs to call create_project() for each item to register. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid, but the usage context is clear.

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