tool_detect_project_contexts

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool parses a file and returns JSON, but omits critical details such as side effects (none implied), error handling for missing or malformed skaffold.yaml, and any permissions required.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds valuable context about consumption. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it could be improved by noting prerequisites (e.g., file existence) or edge cases. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple parsing tool.

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 100%, so the single parameter 'workspace' is already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('skaffold.yaml'), clearly stating the tool's action and output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tool_generate_ci_workflow and tool_generate_skaffold_yaml by focusing on parsing an existing file rather than generating or modifying.

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 explains the downstream use of the output ('consumed by lint, test, janitor, and ci workflow generation'), indicating when the tool is typically invoked. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or provide alternatives.

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