scan_project

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 discloses behavioral aspects such as parsing, extracting symbols/relationships, and caching results. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, required permissions, or other side effects.

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 structured with a clear main purpose followed by bullet points for parameters and returns. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be more concise. The front-loading is adequate.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema (mentioned), the description provides a reasonable overview of behavior, parameters, and return value. It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites or potential side effects beyond caching.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'path' is the project root directory (absolute or relative), 'exclude_patterns' are extra exclusion patterns in gitignore format, and 'max_depth' is the maximum directory depth with a default of 50. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 scans and indexes a project, finds source files, parses them, and extracts symbols/relationships. It differentiates from siblings like rescan_project (which likely rescans) and get_project_summary (which likely returns a summary without scanning).

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 context for when to use the tool (e.g., scanning a project root directory) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools. It lacks guidance on distinguishing from siblings like rescan_project.

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