detect_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It is transparent about what the tool detects and which project types are supported, but it does not disclose what happens for unsupported projects, whether the operation is read-only, or what the success/failure response looks like. Given the simplicity of a detection tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action and object; the second lists supported ecosystems. No filler or redundant information.

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 detection tool, the description covers the main purpose and scope. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks detail on expected return values and behavior for unsupported project types. The gaps are notable but not severe for a simple detection operation.

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 100% for the sole parameter (projectPath). The description adds context about supported ecosystems, which implies valid project-root paths, but does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Detect') with a clear resource ('project type, build system, test framework, and configuration'). It also enumerates supported ecosystems (Maven, Gradle, npm, pnpm, yarn), which distinguishes it from sibling build/test/install tools.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage as a pre-step to build/test tools, but there is no statement like 'use before build_project' or 'for unsupported project types, use X'. The supported-ecosystem list gives some context but not direct routing.

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