discover_projs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions scanning behavior and default values, but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only (likely, but not stated), performance implications (e.g., time for deep scans), error handling (e.g., invalid paths), or output format (just says 'find' without specifying structure). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Scans a directory') and key details (default location, target file types). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (directory scanning with parameters) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of paths, structured data), error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., using discovered projects for building). For a discovery tool in a development context, more contextual guidance is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (workspaceRoot, scanPath, maxDepth) with their types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions the default scan location but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a directory to find specific file types (.xcodeproj and .xcworkspace). It specifies the verb 'scans' and resource 'directory', and mentions the default location. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' or explain why this specific discovery is needed versus general tool discovery.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Xcode installed), compare it to sibling tools like 'discover_tools' or project-building tools, or specify scenarios where this discovery is necessary (e.g., before building or testing). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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