scan_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses auto-detection of lockfiles, directory exclusions, and default CVE filtering. However, it does not explicitly state whether the scan is read-only or has side effects, though the 'scan' verb implies non-destructive behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, with the main purpose in the first sentence and details about behavior and parameters following. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers input semantics and default behavior adequately. It does not detail the output format, but that is acceptable since an output schema exists.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section that clearly explains both parameters: project_path (default '.') and show_all (default false). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 auto-detects and scans all lockfiles in a project directory, listing specific lockfile examples and distinguishing itself from siblings (e.g., scan_lockfile for single files). The verb 'scan' and resource 'project' are specific 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 description explains default behavior (skipping directories, suppressing low-priority CVEs) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_lockfile or monitor_project. It implies usage for whole-project scans but lacks 'when not to use' guidance.

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