Refresh project artifact catalog

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context by explicitly stating it never stores document bodies, does not contact remote services, and does not execute project content. This goes beyond the annotations and clearly discloses safety boundaries, which is essential for an agent assessing side effects. The description does not contradict 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with clear negative constraints. Every phrase adds value; there is no wasted wording or redundancy. The structure is easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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 has a simple three-parameter schema with full coverage)Skip the description does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The description covers key behavioral aspects (metadata-only, no side effects) and the annotations cover idempotency and safety. The tool's complexity is low, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'scope', 'directory', or 'max_files'. It could have added details like how 'scope' interacts with the catalog namespace or the effect of max_files on truncation, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is fully self-sufficient.

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 verb 'Scan' and the resource 'project documentation', and specifies the outcome: persisting a bounded metadata-only artifact catalog. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'index_codebase' by emphasizing metadata-only and no remote services, making its purpose 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 implies when to use it (scanning project docs to persist a catalog) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. With many sibling tools for indexing and searching, explicit guidance on preferring this over 'index_codebase' or 'update_index' would be helpful. The negative constraints (never stores bodies, no remote calls) hint at boundaries but not direct comparison.

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