find_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses shallow scan locations, max depth of 2, hidden-dir skipping, local-only I/O, and the required user-confirmation step. It does not describe the exact output format or error cases, but the core safety and behavioral profile is clearly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states purpose, one states scan constraints, and one states usage protocol. Every sentence adds essential information with no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, scan scope, fidelity constraints, cost/IO implications, and the expected interaction flow. The only omitted details (like output formatting) are adequately implied by 'candidate paths' and the schema's parameter documentation.

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 coverage is 100% and the query parameter is already described as a case-insensitive substring with empty-list behavior. The description adds the 'fuzzy project name' framing, a concrete example, and the notion of candidate paths, which helps the agent understand how the parameter maps to real user intent beyond raw schema syntax.

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 and resource: 'Resolve a fuzzy project name... to candidate paths,' which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like deep_explore or init. It also immediately clarifies that this is a candidate-finding tool, not a direct project-opening or creation tool.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: 'Use ONLY after the user has named a project in chat — never preemptively.' It also specifies the workflow of showing candidates and asking the user which directory is correct before calling init, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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