Auto-Scan Project Dependencies

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports by stating it reads files and fetches best practices (no mutation). The description adds detail about which files are read, going beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a list of file types. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information. No redundant or empty phrases.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's input (project files), action (detect and fetch best practices), and usage hint. No output schema is expected, so missing return value details is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions reading specific files but that aligns with the projectPath description. It does not add new parameter behavior or constraints 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?

Description clearly states the tool's action: automatically detect all dependencies in a project and fetch latest best practices. It also lists specific files read (package.json, requirements.txt, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like gt_best_practices and gt_audit.

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 a usage hint ('Say "use gt" to invoke') and lists supported project files, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when _not_ to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, limiting guidance for selection.

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