detect_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the default scan path but omits behavioral details such as recursion depth, idempotency, side effects, error handling, or what happens if the scan_path is invalid. More transparency is needed for safe invocation.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists). It covers purpose, usage guidance, and parameter. However, it does not mention the output format (e.g., list of paths), though the output schema presumably handles that. Slight deduction for not addressing potential recursion or performance considerations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining scan_path as 'Absolute path to scan' with a default of 'parent of METIS_RC_ROOT'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has a title and default. Slight deduction for not specifying if relative paths are accepted.

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 it scans a folder for unregistered git repos and article folders, with a specific verb 'Scan' and resource 'folder'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_folder_for_intent' by specifying 'unregistered' and 'not yet tracked in Metis', making its purpose distinct.

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 explicitly indicates usefulness 'for onboarding' and advises to call 'create_project()' for each discovered item. It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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