scan_project_folder

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it checks git commits, modified files, todo completions, new documents; updates scan_summary and last_scanned; refreshes CLAUDE.md. No mention of permissions or side effects, but the main effects are covered.

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 and well-structured, with three front-loaded sentences covering the action, checks, and updates. No extraneous information.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the tool's effects and checks adequately. However, it lacks prerequisites or assumed environment (e.g., git repo).

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 description does not explain the project_id parameter, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies the project folder. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify the parameter but fails to do so.

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's action: scanning a project folder to detect work done since last scan. It lists specific checks (git commits, modified files, etc.) and updates performed, distinguishing it from broader scan siblings like 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as full_scan or scan_tracked_files. No preconditions or context for use are provided.

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