analyze_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the mechanism (checking characteristic files) and implies a read-only operation through verbs like 'detect' and 'identifies', but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made or describe edge-case behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful list of supported project types without excess verbiage.

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 only one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how it works, and examples of supported types. It doesn't need to detail return values due to the output schema.

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 sole parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema (project root directory, defaults to cwd), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics; schema coverage is 100%, warranting baseline 3.

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 'detect' and clearly states it identifies project type, framework, and configuration files. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_package_json or project_summary by focusing on automatic detection across multiple languages.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to quickly identify what kind of project is at a path. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it provides clear context without explicit exclusions.

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