project_evidence_scan

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that it 'Mutates nothing and does no inference: it returns ALL candidate signals,' clarifying the tool's non-destructive, non-interpretive behavior. It also details the output format ('surfaced as exact lines'), giving a clear behavioral contract.

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 yet information-dense. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, output content, usage timing, non-mutation guarantee, and sibling distinction. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (evidence categories, exact lines) and the scope of files scanned. Combined with usage timing and behavioral guarantees, it fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states; it merely implies that root_path is the target repo. Since the schema fully documents both parameters, the description needs no further elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('a repo's native operating state'), enumerates exact file patterns, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling context_resolve by stating 'This is NOT context_resolve.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separate from alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing: 'Call AFTER context_resolve and BEFORE building a focus answer,' and an explicit exclusion: 'do not use it to pick which project you're in.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, superior to most tool descriptions.

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