collect_legacy_project_intake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'persist' which implies data storage/writing, but doesn't clarify what exactly gets persisted, where, or with what permanence. It doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what happens in 'dryRun' mode. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose statement.

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, reasonably concise sentence that states the purpose and intended benefit. It's front-loaded with the core action ('collect and persist') and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, given the complexity of the tool (16 parameters), one could argue it's overly terse and could benefit from slightly more detail to justify its existence among many sibling tools.

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 complex tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't explain what 'contextual intake' means, what gets persisted, when to use this tool, or how it relates to the many sibling tools. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to invoke this tool 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?

With 16 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'intakePath' refers to, what 'dryRun' does, what 'reason' is for, or the meaning of any other parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving all parameters semantically undefined.

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 states the tool 'collects and persists legacy-project contextual intake' which provides a verb ('collect and persist') and resource ('legacy-project contextual intake'), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly constitutes 'contextual intake'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'improve AI guidance quality while minimizing repeated prompts/tokens', but doesn't clearly differentiate from tools like 'prepare_legacy_project_for_ai' or 'refresh_project_context_docs' that might have overlapping purposes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the purpose of 'improving AI guidance quality', it doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'prepare_legacy_project_for_ai' or 'refresh_project_context_docs'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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