Detect agent configs in a project

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read-only behavior, and the description reinforces that while adding the scan scope. However, it does not disclose recursion behavior, handling of missing directories, symlink behavior, or whether all matches are returned, so the added behavioral context is limited.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The list of target files is dense but directly supports the tool's 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?

For a one-parameter read-only detection tool, the description is sufficient to call the tool, but it does not explain the return shape or whether scanning is recursive. Since there is no output schema, return semantics remain ambiguous.

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%, and the single parameter is documented as the absolute path of the project root. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb, "Scan," and a specific resource, a project directory, plus enumerates the exact config files and folders it detects. An agent can distinguish this discovery operation from conversion, migration, and compatibility siblings.

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?

It states that the scan is read-only and what it looks for, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus convert_rules, convert_mcp_config, migrate_project, or compat_matrix. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended sequencing such as scanning before migration.

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