discover_keil_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only discovery operation but does not state side effects, return format, behavior on invalid directories, or how max_depth affects results. This under-disclosure is risky for a tool that scans a directory.

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 sentence that starts with the verb and directly states the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is efficiently 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what constitutes a 'target' and what 'likely AXF/ELF outputs' means, as well as the expected return value. The current one-liner leaves significant ambiguity for an agent selecting the tool.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for root or max_depth (0% coverage). While 'under a directory' hints at root, the description fails to explain that root is the starting path or clarify the role of max_depth in limiting traversal depth.

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 the specific verb 'Find' and names the resources (Keil project files, targets, AXF/ELF outputs) with a location scope ('under a directory'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like configure_keil_project or build_project.

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 a search/discovery use case but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_target_info or configure_keil_project. No exclusions or preferred contexts are stated.

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