read_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it 'Returns directory tree and optionally file contents for specified files or all files,' which gives the agent a clear expectation of the output and its optional nature. It does not mention any side effects, but for a read-only operation, this 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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action and then provide usage context and output details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 is moderately complex with five parameters and no output schema, so the description must cover key behavioral aspects. It does explain the return value (directory tree and optionally file contents) and the core use case. It does not elaborate on edge cases like invalid paths or large file handling, but those are not essential for initial understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds little beyond the schema except a hint that 'specified files' relates to path/includeContents, but it does not elaborate on parameter formats or defaults. This matches the baseline expectation for well-documented schemas.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the project folder structure and file contents.' It also provides context ('understand a codebase before making changes') that implies its role, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like review_code or get_status. Overall, it is clear and specific enough to understand what the tool does.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand a codebase before making changes.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, such as search tools. Still, the guidance is direct and practical.

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