find_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (searches for .scriv folders), where it searches (common locations), and that it returns a list of paths. While it doesn't mention performance or side effects, the read-only nature is implied by 'Find' and the return description, which is adequate for this simple tool.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then provides a brief explanation, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 fully covers the tool's context: purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return type. It even names the follow-up tool (open_project). For a simple, optional-parameter discovery tool, this is complete and requires no additional information for an agent to use 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 input schema provides only a parameter name and type, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose and behavior: 'search_path: Optional specific folder to search. If not provided, searches common locations like Documents, Dropbox, iCloud.' This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find Scrivener projects on your computer.' It specifies the resource (.scriv folders) and the scope (common locations), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_project by focusing on discovery.

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: 'Use this to discover available projects, then use open_project to load one.' It names an alternative tool for the next step, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool. This is strong guidance for a discovery tool.

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