Detect the mobile project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'Filesystem only; runs nothing' clarifies it will not execute builds or side effects, and 'suggest' plus 'notes' signals the output is advisory rather than applied. It could still say more about what the notes contain.

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 tight sentences that front-load the resource and frameworks, then the scoping constraint and workflow hint. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing config-review sentence is slightly advisory filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description conveys what the tool returns (suggested commands, artifact paths, notes) and its safety profile. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read-only detector, needing only clearer downstream routing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'dir' as an absolute path. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspect) and resource (a directory of a mobile app) plus the concrete output: suggested buildtree.config.json commands and artifact paths. It distinguishes itself from write_config and build by being read-only and suggestion-only, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Implies a workflow position ('Review the notes before writing the config'), which suggests using this ahead of buildtree_write_config. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not name the alternative tool directly.

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