mcp_qwen_build_project_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool scans the project, builds a tree, selects up to 4 code files and up to 5 images for direct attachment, and prepares the rest for the request body. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a reasonable model of the tool's behavior, though it omits edge cases like ignored files or error handling.

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 compact and informative, with the core action front-loaded and no redundant wording. The second sentence adds a useful purpose statement. It is slightly long and dense, but every clause contributes meaning.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what it selects, and how the result is intended to be used, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description's explanation of the produced tree, file list, and attachment/body split. More details on return structure would be welcome, but are not critically missing.

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 already documents project_dir, target_files, and max_attachments. The description adds the concrete defaults of up to 4 code files and up to 5 images, which enriches understanding, but it does not explain how target_files or max_attachments interact with those limits. 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 ('Сканирует директорию проекта') and clearly states the resource and outcome: it builds a directory tree and file list, selects files for attachment, and prepares the rest for the request body. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like submit_task or verify_task, but its purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Позволяет Orchestrator предварительно оценить контекст' implies the tool is meant for early project inspection before task submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as continue_task or submit_task, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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