update_all_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans and refreshes files, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is safe or destructive. The description adds value but could be more transparent about impact.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence defines the action, the second provides usage context. Every word contributes meaning, with no waste. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, existence of output schema), the description is complete. It covers the primary action, the resource, and the trigger. The output schema can handle return value details, so no further elaboration needed.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. Following the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. No additional parameter context is required.

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 purpose: scanning all registered project folders for activity and refreshing CLAUDE.md. The verb 'scan' and 'refresh' are specific, and the resource is explicit. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_project_folder (single project) and full_scan (different scope).

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 mentions it is called by the dashboard Update button or on demand, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives for single-project updates, which would strengthen guidance.

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