discover_keil_projects

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that this is a non-mutating discovery operation and identifies the file pattern, but it does not clarify key behaviors such as whether recursion is used by default, whether hidden directories are searched, or what a returned result looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a bare tool definition.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to scan. It is slightly under-specified relative to the tool's complexity, but as a standalone line it is compact and direct.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description leaves too much important context unstated. An agent calling this tool would not know that the recursive parameter defaults to true, whether results are full paths or relative names, or how failures are reported. For a tool intended to discover projects on disk, more context is needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely communicates that 'directory' is the search root. It provides no meaningful detail about the 'recursive' parameter, which has an important default of true and directly changes tool behavior. The description adds only minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 ('Discover'), a concrete resource pattern ('*.uvprojx Keil projects'), and a clear scope ('under a directory'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_project, configure_keil_project, and source_search, which serve different purposes.

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs to locate Keil project files within a directory, and because the siblings are mostly build/configure/debug operations, the intended context is reasonably inferable. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implicit.

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