jekyll_project_scan

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important trait, 'Read-only,' which tells the agent this is a safe inspection call. Beyond that it is silent on caching behavior (the force param implies a cache exists), cost, or freshness of the scan, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The return payload is front-loaded, followed by the triggering condition and the safety note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the map's contents so the agent knows what it will receive. Combined with the usage trigger and read-only note, this is nearly complete; only caching/freshness semantics are unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'force' as a cache bypass. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no extra credit.

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 verb (scan) and resource (the project), and enumerates exactly what the returned architecture map contains (config files, directories, layouts, includes, components, sections, SCSS/JS). This distinguishes it clearly from narrower siblings like jekyll_project_info or jekyll_config_get, which return subsets.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it: 'when you need a detailed map before creating or modifying components.' That is a clear triggering context. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., project_info) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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