scan_project_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates scan_summary, last_scanned, and refreshes CLAUDE.md. It also lists checked items. However, it could be more explicit about any side effects beyond these updates, but overall it is adequate.

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. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by bullet points of what it checks and updates. Every sentence adds value with no 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 the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the core action, inputs (implicitly), and side effects. Minor gaps: no mention of idempotency or prerequisites (e.g., must have a connected project folder). Still sufficient for a scan 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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The description does not mention the single required parameter 'project_id' or explain its role. While the purpose suggests it refers to the project folder, the lack of explicit parameter documentation leaves ambiguity.

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 a project folder to detect work done since last scan. It lists specific checks (git commits, modified files, todo completions, new documents) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_folder_for_intent' or 'scan_inbox' by focusing on project-specific work detection.

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 context (scanning a project folder for recent work) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, which slightly limits guidance.

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