rtfm_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a useful performance trait ('~1 second') and implies a read-only scan, but it does not disclose behaviors like recursive traversal, handling of invalid paths, or side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, expected output, and rough execution time without any wasted words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the expected scope. Some guidance about errors or edge cases would improve completeness, but it is largely sufficient.

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 only parameter, 'path', is already described as 'project root directory (default ".")'. The description adds little semantic detail beyond the schema; it merely repeats the notion of a project directory.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Scan a project directory' and return a 'structural map' with concrete output elements. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rtfm_search or rtfm_context.

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?

Usage is implied: if you need a structural overview of a project directory, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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