portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (scanning, showing status, generating advice) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that interacts with directories and AI, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's core functions. Every sentence adds value: the first sets the context and main actions, and the second specifies the output (resource allocation advice). There's no redundant or vague language, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (involving directory scanning, health metrics, and AI advice) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'health status' entails in detail, how risks are assessed, the format of the AI advice, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter ('projects_root') that is well-documented in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description's context about scanning directories for projects implicitly aligns with the parameter's purpose, adding slight value. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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's purpose: scanning directories for projects, showing health status metrics (todos, review history, risks), and generating resource allocation advice from a founder perspective. It uses specific verbs like 'scans', 'shows', and 'asks AI to give advice', making the function explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'todo_summary' or 'review', which might overlap in functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's for 'founders managing multiple projects', but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'todo_summary' or 'review' that might handle similar aspects. Without this context, users must infer usage scenarios independently.

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