Attach a local folder as the codebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Sends text files only, skipping .git, node_modules and build output, bounded by file count and total size.' This is valuable for understanding filtering and limits. It does not mention auth or return behavior, but the core operation is well-disclosed.

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 three sentences, each contributing essential information: the action, the filtering behavior, and the recommended usage. No fluff or redundancy; it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, filtering behavior, and typical usage scenario. It could detail all parameters, but the schema and context signals (like sibling list_projects) fill in some gaps. It is reasonably complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for the 'dir' parameter ('frontend or design-system folder') and conceptually mentions file count/size limits, but does not name parameters like maxFiles/maxBytes or explain units. It partially compensates but leaves projectId and visible undocumented.

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 'Attach a folder from this machine to a Claude Design project,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like choose_repository by focusing on local folder attachment, and adds scope ('so it designs against your real code') and placement guidance ('frontend or design-system folder').

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 provides clear usage context: 'Point it at the frontend or design-system folder rather than a whole monorepo.' This gives an exclusion (don't use for monorepo) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios beyond that. Effective but lacks full alternative comparison.

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