analyze_project_needs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read surface (manifest and config files scanned) and the nature of the result (detected stacks plus recommended skills/agents), which makes clear this is a non-mutating analysis step. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or what permissions the path requires, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the operation front-loaded and the invocation directive placed at the end where it is most actionable. Every clause earns its place by naming either the inputs or the outputs.

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, the description compensates by enumerating what the report contains (stacks, frameworks, dependencies, recommended skills and agents), which is enough for an agent to know what it gets back. It does not mention failure modes for a missing or invalid path, a minor omission for a single-parameter 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents workspacePath fully. The description adds no path syntax or resolution detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States specific verbs (scan, report) and concrete resources: the exact dependency manifests and config files it inspects, plus the four classes of output (stacks, frameworks, dependencies, recommended skills/agents). An agent can distinguish it from search_skills_and_agents and install_skill_or_agent purely from this sentence.

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?

Gives explicit ordering relative to its siblings: "Call this first, before searching or installing anything." This routes the agent away from search_skills_and_agents and install_skill_or_agent until this has run, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed.

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