Scan project files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the deterministic ordering (most urgent first) and the presence of a summary paragraph, which matter for interpreting results. It stops short of saying what happens with unrecognized file names or with files beyond the 200-item cap.

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?

Purpose and output shape are stated first, then the file list — good front-loading. The enumerated format whitelist is long but it is operationally necessary for the agent to know what to send, so it earns its space; only the trailing 'and more' softens an otherwise tight list.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does, including ranking order and an extra summary field. Combined with the supported-file list and the contents-not-paths warning, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by supplying the supported-filename whitelist and by clarifying that a path's name (not its content alone) decides how the file is interpreted. That is meaningfully more than the schema's `path`/`content` field docs.

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?

Specific verb (reads) plus resource (project files) plus precisely stated output (detected runtimes/frameworks with support status, sorted most urgent first, plus a summary paragraph). Nothing here overlaps with siblings like check_version or get_cycles, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 front-loads the key invocation constraint — pass file *contents*, not disk paths — which pre-empts the most likely misuse. It also conveys the use case via the supported-file whitelist, but it never names an alternative tool or states when *not* to use this one.

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