Metis — Scan Project Folder

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it updates scan_summary and last_scanned fields, and refreshes CLAUDE.md. This gives the agent awareness of side effects beyond the simple 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 with four lines, each providing distinct information. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficient, though slightly more structure could improve 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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and side effects. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be connected) but is otherwise complete for a simple one-parameter tool.

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% and the description does not elaborate on the project_id parameter beyond its name. While the parameter is straightforward, the description adds no additional meaning or constraints.

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 scans a project folder to detect work done since last scan, listing specific checks (git commits, modified files, todo completions, new documents). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'scan_project_scripts' and 'full_scan'.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of what it does, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_project_scripts) or any conditions/limitations.

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