Re-include paths in analysis

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still contributes real context the annotations do not: paths must be real (no globs), and the operation is atomic — if any path is missing, nothing is written. That all-or-nothing failure mode is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs before batching paths.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and load-bearing: the first defines the action, the second defines the validity and failure contract. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema the description covers the core action and the failure behavior, which is a good amount. It leaves gaps an agent might care about: whether the project must be bootstrapped first, whether the response reports which paths were re-included, and how this interacts with module-level skips handled by the skip/unskip siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining 'paths' to real, existing paths, which rules out wildcards or patterns and reinforces the atomicity rule. It adds nothing about projectDir, but that parameter is already fully documented in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: return paths to analysis / re-include an exception inside an excluded directory. That is unmistakably the inverse of statica_scope_exclude, so an agent can distinguish the pair even though the sibling is never named. It stops short of a 5 only because the relationship to siblings is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing: call this to undo an exclusion, including the nested case of an exception inside an excluded directory. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to statica_scope_exclude or statica_scope_show as the counterpart/diagnostic.

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