Get project context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond those: the scan is bounded and local, and it 'never executes project commands'—a stronger and more specific behavioral guarantee than a generic read-only hint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the core purpose and enumerated scope, and the second adds a critical safety constraint. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with five optional parameters, but schema coverage is 100% and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description completes the picture with bounded/local scope and execution safety. The main gap is explicit routing among the many overlapping sibling inspection tools.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's category list loosely maps to some parameters (manifests, scripts, redact_secrets), but it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific resource and action: build a bounded local onboarding profile covering project type, languages, frameworks, manifests, scripts, workspaces, entrypoints, tests, configuration, documentation, and path aliases. This makes the tool's scope concrete and visibly different from the many sibling query/index tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies the use case (local onboarding/inspection) and the safety property that it never executes project commands, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. None of the numerous sibling tools are mentioned as alternatives or exclusions.

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