project_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool scans a local directory and can persist a summary to local storage, which is helpful, but it does not clarify permissions, whether the project itself is modified, error behavior, or filesystem limits.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then structures parameter details cleanly. The Returns line is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but the overall size is appropriate and easy to parse.

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 description covers the core purpose and all parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. However, with no annotations, it leaves behavioral gaps around permissions, side effects on the filesystem, and usage boundaries, making it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: path accepts absolute or relative paths, depth controls directory nesting with default 4, and save persists the summary with default True. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb and resource: scan a local project directory and record its structure. This is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on assistants, tasks, memory, and blackbox operations.

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 implied by the purpose ('scan a local project directory and record its structure for later reuse'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Given that no sibling tool overlaps with project scanning, implied usage is adequate but not rich.

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