rescan_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool updates the project incrementally and returns a change report. This gives basic behavioral insight but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency. The description is not misleading but could be more thorough.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a purpose statement, an incremental update explanation, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is essential, and the structure is logical. The mixed languages (Turkish and English) are minimal and do not detract.

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 simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists) and the clear description of its incremental behavior and return value, the description is nearly complete. It lacks mention of whether the operation is synchronous or requires specific permissions, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool.

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 input schema only provides the parameter name 'path' with type string and no description. The description adds a clear explanation: 'path: Proje kök dizini' (project root directory), which completely defines the parameter's meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, this is excellent.

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 updates a previously scanned project incrementally, only re-parsing changed files. The verb 'rescan' and the explicit 'incremental' nature distinguish it from an initial full scan, which is implied by the sibling tool 'scan_project'.

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 specifies that the tool is for updating a previously scanned project, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'scan_project' for initial scans, but the context is sufficient.

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