Summarise this project

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "Reads nothing else and sends nothing anywhere", which is a useful explicit scope guarantee. It also discloses the extraction targets, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not cover edge cases such as large repos, ignored directories, or how a missing manifest is handled.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then the enumerated contents follow. The long parenthetical list of tool ecosystems is somewhat verbose but each item clarifies detection scope. The final sentence about the `text` field is well placed as a call to action.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description carries the necessary load: it explains what is collected and that the response exposes a `text` field for downstream use. Only marginal gaps remain, such as response size or behavior on non-project directories.

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 100% and the single `dir` parameter is documented in the schema as a folder relative to the project with a default. The description never mentions `dir` or its relative-path semantics, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the documentation work.

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 names a specific verb and resource (summarise a project folder) and then enumerates exactly what the summary contains: package.json/pyproject.toml/Cargo.toml metadata, dependency names, detected tools, README headings, file-type counts, top-level names. It also distinguishes scope explicitly ("without its contents"), so an agent knows this is metadata extraction, not file reading.

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?

Usage is made concrete by tying it to a workflow: it is what `kadal-store recommend --from` sends, and its `text` should be passed to recommend as context. That tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g. when to call `list_my_notes` or `search_products` instead), so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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