database_detect_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it scans files, network access is needed, or any side effects. The term 'detect' implies a non-mutating operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but does not explain the return value or any behavioral details like what 'detect' produces (e.g., a configuration object). The lack of output schema increases the need for description, but given the low complexity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 schema already provides a full description of the sole parameter 'projectPath' as 'Path to the project directory'. The tool description adds little beyond that, merely echoing 'project directory'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; there is no extra semantic value added.

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 'Detect database configuration from a project directory' clearly identifies the verb ('detect'), the resource ('database configuration'), and the context ('project directory'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like database_connect or database_execute_sql, though it could be more explicit about what detection entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or scenarios where this should be preferred.

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