scan_project_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the core operation but lacks important behavioral details: whether the scan is recursive, what happens if files are missing or malformed, whether it modifies files, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 that efficiently convey purpose and outcome with zero wasted words. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second describes the return value. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the structure of the returned dependency list, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The description compensates somewhat but leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs file system operations.

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 description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'project_path' is fully documented in the schema). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as path format expectations or validation rules. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('scan', 'extract'), the target resource ('Minecraft plugin project directory'), and the specific files processed ('build.gradle, build.gradle.kts, and pom.xml files'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on dependency extraction rather than analysis, version checking, or documentation retrieval.

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 usage context (when you need to extract dependencies from specific build files), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_plugin_project' or 'check_latest_versions'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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