project_for_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful traits: read-only and 'never creates a project', plus ancestor-resolution semantics. It omits what happens when no project is registered (error vs empty result) and any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the lookup semantics front-loaded and the safety note trailing.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description should state the not-found behavior since there is no output contract to fall back on. Read-only status and ancestor resolution are covered, but the return semantics are left implicit.

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 0% and the single 'folder' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates partially by requiring an 'absolute folder'. It does not specify path formatting details such as trailing separators or tilde expansion.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (Filigree project registered for a folder), plus the resolution rule (nearest registered ancestor). This clearly separates it from list_projects, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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: you call it when you have a folder path and want the owning project. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to list_projects or search_memory for the alternative cases.

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