check_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. Beyond stating that it runs diagnostics, it doesn't explain whether this read-only, how slow it might be, what 'clustering' entails, or any side effects. The description carries full responsibility and falls short on these details.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 simple (one parameter) and has no output schema, but the description doesn't explain what 'clusters' means for the return value, how results are presented, or any implications for project paths. Given the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is a baseline effort but not fully complete for accurate invocation and interpretation.

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 describes 'paths' as an array of strings but provides no per-parameter description. The description adds that these are 'project paths,' which gives some semantic context, but it doesn't specify whether they should be directories, files, or glob patterns, leaving key ambiguity. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 function: it runs and clusters Oxlint and TypeScript diagnostics specifically for project paths. This uses a specific verb ('runs and clusters') and names the diagnostic tools (Oxlint, TypeScript), making it distinct from sibling tools like check_files or ping.

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 when to use this tool (for project-level diagnostics) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like check_files. It lacks usage context beyond the basic function, so it's adequate but not illuminating.

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