scan_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that scanning returns a structured overview, does not load every document into memory, and scans the entire Draft/Manuscript folder by default. This adequately conveys the read-only, high-level behavior, though it does not mention any potential performance implications.

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 a clear summary and well-organized Args/Returns sections. However, it slightly repeats return information ('Returns chapter titles...' and 'Returns: Structured overview...'), making it a bit redundant while still efficient.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, what it returns, the default scan scope, and how it relates to deeper-dive tools. The output schema covers return details, so no further return documentation is needed.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining folder_path is optional, giving an example ('Book One'), and stating the default behavior (scans the entire Draft/Manuscript folder). This adds essential 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 clearly states the tool scans the project and returns a structured overview with chapter titles, word counts, synopses, and opening lines. It explicitly contrasts with read_document/read_chapter for diving deeper, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this to get a bird's eye view, then use read_document or read_chapter(chapter="...") to dive deeper into specific sections.' It names alternatives but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it lacks the explicit exclusion present in a 5.

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