seed_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It reveals that the tool reads files and writes to the knowledge graph, but omits critical behaviors like idempotency, side effects, error handling, or permissions. The 'force' parameter is not explained in the description.

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?

A single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. No redundancy or fluff. The key action is 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?

The tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It lacks information about return values, side effects, safety, or prerequisites. For a tool that modifies the knowledge graph, this is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it neither explains parameter usage nor provides context for 'force'. No enhancement over schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Scan project codebase' and 'populate knowledge graph') clearly indicating the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'record_decision' or 'ingest_pr_reviews' by focusing on codebase seeding.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. This leaves the agent without clarity on appropriate invocation.

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