project_add

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation registers a directory, defaults to cwd, and is idempotent (returns existing project if path already registered). However, it does not state permissions, side effects beyond registration, or whether name participates in idempotency; still, it offers some transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and each sentence adds behavior or default context. 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?

While an output schema exists and the core behavior is described, the description omits any semantics for the name parameter and provides no guidance on required versus optional usage beyond the cwd default. For a registration tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It only loosely ties 'directory' and 'defaults to current working directory' to path; the name property is never explained. This is insufficient for 2 parameters.

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?

States a specific action ('Register a directory as a project') with a clear resource, and adds default-path and idempotency behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like project_list and project_select.

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?

Gives implied usage by noting default to current working directory and idempotent return, but does not explicitly say when to use this over project_list/project_select/project_prune or mention exclusions. The guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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