scan_folder_for_intent

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that scanning can be fast (names only) or more accurate (content reading), and that 'none' yields empty results. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or side effects.

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, using a docstring format with a single-line purpose followed by a clear Args section. Each sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (so return values are handled), the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavioral variations. It lacks potential edge cases like non-existent folders, but overall provides sufficient context for a scanning 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides detailed semantics for both parameters: `folder_path` is clearly defined as an absolute path, and `scan_type` enumerates three options with behavior descriptions.

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 'Detect a project's purpose from its folder contents,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `scan_project_folder` by focusing on intent detection, and details three scanning modes.

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 implies usage for understanding project purpose via folder scanning, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `scan_project_folder`), nor does it provide when-not or prerequisite conditions.

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