add_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that source patterns are auto-detected and indexing happens immediately, and that a summary is returned. However, it omits behavioral details such as what happens if the project name already exists, whether the operation is reversible, or potential side effects like large directory scans.

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 concise and well-structured: a single main sentence followed by an Args/Returns block. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the format is clean and scannable.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, both arguments, and the return value. The output schema exists, so return details are not strictly needed. However, it could be more complete by mentioning edge cases like duplicate project names or prerequisite checks (e.g., path must exist, permissions). Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining that 'name' is a unique project name with an example, and 'path' is an absolute path to the project root. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw 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 'Add a new project to the RAG index' with specific actions: auto-detects source patterns and indexes immediately. This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_file or add_folder by focusing on the whole project rather than individual files or folders.

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 implies usage when a new project should be added to the index, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., add_file for single files) or provide conditions or exclusions. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is included.

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