scan_project

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states purpose but does not disclose whether the tool modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed, and no details about performance or limits are given.

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?

Single sentence of 8 words is highly concise. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary details, making it less effective than a slightly longer, more informative statement. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for insufficient content.

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 existence of an output schema and a single parameter, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what 'documentation opportunities' means, how the output relates to sibling tools, or how the agent should use the results. The tool's role in a documentation pipeline is unclear.

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% and the description omits any explanation of the single parameter 'project_path'. No value is added beyond the schema's basic type and requirement, leaving the agent without guidance on path format, valid values, or scope.

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?

Description uses specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('project structure'), clearly stating its role to identify documentation opportunities, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle doxygen installation, configuration, generation, and validation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow position, or scenarios where other tools are preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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