scan_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'auto-discover' and 'returns discovered items,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies state or requires special permissions. It adds some context but lacks explicit safety/behavioral disclosure.

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, two sentences, with the action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and the return value at a high level ('discovered items for you to link to features'). It lacks details on the return format or potential errors, but is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (`projectName` with a clear description), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces that the project must be registered.

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's function: auto-discovering endpoints, screens, or pages from a registered project. It uses a specific verb ('auto-discover') and identifies the resource (project), distinguishing it from siblings like register_project and get_feature.

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 provides clear context for use: it returns discovered items intended for linking to features. It implies the project must already be registered, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. This is clear context with no exclusions, warranting a 4.

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