scan_folder_for_intent

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it reads file/folder names or specific files (README, CLAUDE.md, PLANNING.md), no destructive actions, and returns empty for scan_type=none. It's transparent about read-only nature, though lacks detail on error handling.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then clear parameter list. No unnecessary words, each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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 no annotations and simple tool with 2 params, the description covers input semantics well. It doesn't mention return format but output schema exists. It could mention error behavior but overall sufficient for its complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining folder_path as absolute path and scan_type with three options and their effects. Both parameters are meaningfully described beyond the 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 detects a project's purpose from folder contents, using strong verb 'Detect' and specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'scan_project_folder' by focusing on intent detection.

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 explains the three scan_type options with trade-offs (fast vs accurate), guiding when to use each. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools like scan_project_folder or specify when not to use this tool.

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