project_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool scans all Fortran files, aggregates metrics, and assigns a score, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, and performance implications of scanning all files are only hinted.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists specific actions, achieving maximum information density.

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?

Given the complexity of sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output. It does not detail prerequisites or side effects, but for a metrics computation tool, this is sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter, project_path, with zero schema description coverage. The description adds context that it refers to a Fortran project directory, but does not provide format or constraints beyond what is obvious from the type. Baseline is appropriate given the parameter's simplicity.

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 clearly states the tool computes project-wide quality metrics and generates a 'legacy heatmap', with specific actions like scanning Fortran files, aggregating lines, counting legacy constructs, and assigning a modernization score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual files or specific analyses.

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 for overall project analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_pure_candidates or audit_implicit_interfaces. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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