detect_active_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Attempts to automatically detect', hinting at possible failure but not explaining side effects, whether it can overwrite an existing active project, or what happens after detection. The forceRedetect parameter indicates a skip behavior that is not mentioned in the description.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at return values or behavioral outcomes. It does not explain what the tool returns, when it might fail, or the difference between an already-set project and a forced redetect. The low complexity is offset by the lack of essential behavioral context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description does not discuss the 'forceRedetect' parameter, but the input schema provides a clear description and default value, giving 100% schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adds no semantic value beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'detect' and resource 'active Xcode project', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_active_project (which likely returns current setting) and find_projects (which searches broadly). The word 'automatically' clarifies it performs discovery rather than requiring manual input.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The implication is that it is used when the active project needs to be discovered automatically, but it does not tell the agent when to prefer this over get_active_project or set_project_path, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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