scan_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the safety profile ("Read-only") and that results are paginated, which are real behavioral facts. It omits permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, and what governs which files get counted as skipped.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: scope first, then the read-only safety fact, then the path constraint and pagination. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It covers scope, safety, and pagination, but leaves the return shape (what a manifest record or inventory entry looks like) and page-size behavior unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It adds real meaning for `path` (relative subdirectory only, scoped to the configured workspace) and hints at pagination, but `limit` and `offset` are never addressed by name, units, or bounds.

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 gives a specific verb ("Discover") plus a concrete resource inventory: project manifests, frameworks, source file inventory, and skipped-file counts under the workspace. That clearly distinguishes it from the review_*/analyze_* siblings, which analyze rather than inventory, though no sibling is named 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?

It adds a constraint on how to use `path` (relative subdirectory only) and notes pagination, but never states when this tool should be chosen over analyze_code or the review_* tools, nor any prerequisites for a successful scan.

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