Scan the project natively - no-install file inventory + import map

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

Even with annotations already marking idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it walks the repo gitignore-aware, excludes junk dirs, resolves import aliases/workspaces, writes exactly one file, and does not build a per-symbol AST graph. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-load the core behavior and each adds useful context (scan scope, output file, downstream usage, limitation). Minor brand language ('KLYPIX's own') and the somewhat vague 'through the same door' phrase keep it from a perfect score.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input, traversal behavior, exclusions, resolution rules, the write side effect, and the relationship to project_map_context and deeper artifacts. An agent has enough information to call and interpret the result.

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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema ('Absolute project root. Defaults to this MCP connection's configured project/vault'), and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('scanner'), names the resource ('repo', 'JS/TS family'), and clearly states the output ('writes klypix-map/graph.json'). It also distinguishes itself from deeper AST-graph artifacts, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like project_map_context.

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?

It states the tool is the zero-install native scanner and explains that the artifact serves project_map_context automatically when no Graphify artifact exists. It also notes the tool deliberately avoids per-symbol AST graphs, implying an alternative for deeper analysis, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or give when-not-to-use instructions.

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