Metis — Scan Folder For Intent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It reveals that 'names' skips content reading, 'content' reads specific files, and 'none' returns empty. But it omits details on error handling, permissions, or side effects, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args section. It is front-loaded with purpose. The Args list is slightly verbose but necessary for clarity.

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 low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and behaviors. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., missing folder) but is sufficient for the intended simple use case.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains both parameters: folder_path as absolute path, and scan_type with three enumerated values and their behaviors. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles.

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 purpose: 'Detect a project's purpose from its folder contents.' It uses a specific verb (detect) and resource (project purpose from folder), and distinguishes from siblings like '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 their use cases (fast vs accurate vs manual), providing clear context for when to choose each. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'detect_projects' or state when not to use the tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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