ralph_detect_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior: analyzing project structure and suggesting presets, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it modifies anything (likely read-only but not stated), error handling, or output format. It adds some context but misses key behavioral traits for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds clarifying details with examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (analyzing project structure) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and gives examples, but for a detection/suggestion tool with no structured output, it should ideally describe the return format or behavior more explicitly. It's adequate but has gaps in contextual detail.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for. The description doesn't need to add param info, so it meets expectations without extra effort.

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 purpose: 'Detect which tool presets are available for the current project' and 'Analyzes the project structure and suggests relevant tool presets.' It specifies the verb (detect/analyze) and resource (tool presets) with concrete examples (javascript-test, javascript-lint). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'ralph_list_tools' which might list tools rather than detect presets based on project structure.

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 discover tool presets based on project analysis, such as checking for package.json. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ralph_list_tools' or 'ralph_get_template', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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