Discover local projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the search is limited to approved parent folders and includes non-Git folders. This tells the agent the tool will not scan arbitrary paths, which is important for setting expectations. It doesn't describe return format or performance, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, then adds the key scope constraint. No wasted words; every part contributes to the tool's purpose. It is efficient and clear, though brevity comes at the cost of parameter explanation.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter schema coverage, and four parameters, the description is insufficient. It explains only the scope (approved folders) and a hint at non-Git inclusion, but omits what maxDepth/maxProjects/maxDirectories do, what the return shape is, or any pagination/concurrency behavior. For a tool with this parameter complexity and no schema descriptions, the description should do much more to make the tool callable correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters (maxDepth, maxProjects, includeNonGit, maxDirectories). The description only hints at includeNonGit via 'non-Git project folders' but doesn't name or explain any parameter. Depth limits, count limits, and directory limits are entirely undocumented. This leaves the agent with no meaning for the parameters beyond defaults and types.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Git repositories and common non-Git project folders'), and adds a critical scope constraint ('only beneath parent folders that the user approved locally during setup'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects, which presumably lists known projects without that restriction. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 by restricting to approved parent folders, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when to use another tool. It lacks guidance on when not to use this (e.g., when a user needs to see all projects regardless of approval status). The constraint hints at a filtering role, but no alternatives are referenced, so an agent has to infer the boundary between this and list_projects.

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