fullscope_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, non-destructive, or any behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks explicit disclosure of 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?

Two sentences—first detailing outputs, second giving usage advice. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential information: what it returns and when to use it. It could mention performance or read-only nature, but is sufficiently complete for an orientation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'path' described as 'Project root directory (defaults to cwd)'. The description adds little beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on format or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a 'compressed codebase orientation' with specific outputs: filtered directory tree, config files, git status, entry points with dependencies. It differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the first call when exploring a new codebase.

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?

Explicitly advises to use as the first call when exploring a new codebase, providing clear context. While it doesn't detail when not to use or list alternatives, the guidance is sufficient given the sibling tools.

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